Essentially, the challenge involved in this writ petition is against Ext.P20 notice issued by the Secretary of the first respondent Panchayat. The petitioner seeks quashment of Exts.P6, P9, P19 orders/notices as well and a declaration to the effect that in view of Exts.P11 to P14 reports and orders the construction of the building carried out by the petitioner in the property having an extent of 0.12 acres comprised in Resurvey No.94/13 of Pilicode Village is legal. The further prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the first respondent to regularise the construction carried out as per Ext.P1 and assign the building number. Ext.P9 is an order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No.525/2012 dated 13.10.2012 filed challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the Secretary of the Pilicode Grama Panchayath dated 25.6.2012. The petitioner attempted to explain the delay contending that the challenge in this writ petition is virtually and in essence, against Ext.P19 order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions dated 7.4.2014 in CMP No.281/2013 in Original Petition No.456/2012 based on which Ext.P20 notice was issued. Evidently, the impugned Ext.P20 notice was issued to the petitioner by the Secretary of the first respondent Panchayat in compliance with the order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions taking note of the order of the Tribunal in Appeal No.525/2012. Ext.P6 order dated 25.6.2012 was issued by the Secretary of the first respondent Panchayath requiring the petitioner to demolish the construction effected without leaving the requisite set back of one meter from the boundary of the property of her neighbour one Smt.Karthyayani. In fact, the set back provided on that side is only 0.85 meters. The direction was to demolish the said constructions to the extent it violates the provisions under the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011. The petitioner was also required to demolish the construction of the sunshade in excess of 60 C.M.
on the side that lies conterminous with the property of the said Karthyayani and also to make permanent arrangement to prevent contamination of well water by the fall of water from the portions of her building in to the well dug on the boundary for the use of both the families. In fact, Ext.P6 order was passed after serving a provisional/order in the nature of show cause notice dated 23.5.2012. The petitioner herein challenged Ext.P6 order before the Tribunal. However, the appeal was dismissed and Ext.P6 was confirmed as per Ext.P9 order of the Tribunal dated 30.10.2012 in Appeal No. 525/2012. Despite such an adverse order the petitioner did not prefer to challenge the same appropriately. Later, the petitioner filed Ext.P10 petition dated 7.11.2012 before the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Kerala seeking appropriate steps to cancell Ext.P6 order of the Secretary of the first respondent Panchayath which was confirmed as per Ext.P9 by the Tribunal. It was also sought for taking steps for the assignment of number to the building in question, grant of ownership certificate and for such other reliefs. On being asked the Panchayath Secretary gave a reply to the Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department in the matter and later Ext.P12 letter which carries a direction to regularize the construction effected by the petitioner was passed. That apart, as per the same, the Secretary of the Panchayath was asked to offer explanation as to why contrary to the factual position steps were taken against the construction effected by the petitioner and also to furnish a copy of the order of the Tribunal urgently. Ext.P12 reads thus:-
“ ] V U O O. ] U V ] ]U V r V 27(5) N U ] ] ] ÿ] O V V V V ] r r] V ] O ] ] U N ] ÿO O ] ~ ] O O O. O V ] O ] ] ] ] ] ~ ] ÿ ] O ] OU O: N ] ] O OU ] ] ] O O O.”
I may hasten to add that the very tenor of Ext.P12 is not at all acceptable in rule of law because such a letter seeking explanation was issued to the secretary after taking note of the fact evident from Ext.P10 petition submitted by the petitioner that Ext.P6 order of the Secretary was confirmed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution as per the order in Appeal No.525/2012. However, I do no think it necessary to delve into the said aspect in view of the subsequent development. It is to be noted that the learned Ombudsman had also taken exception to the said action. The aforementioned Karthyayani, the 5th respondent herein approached the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions by filing Original Petition No.456/2012. CMP No.281/2013 was also moved by the said Karthyayani in O.P. No.456/2012 and Ext.P19 order was passed in the said C.M.P by the the Ombudsman. The direction of the Ombudsman is only to comply with the direction of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions if it has become final. The petitioner who did not take up the order of the Tribunal within a reasonable time cannot legally raise grievances against the subsequent orders passed by the Ombudsman based on the basic order. I have already referred to the fact that the basic order is the order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions as early as on 30.10.2012. The petitioner who did not challenge Ext.P9 order of the Tribunal dated 30.10.2012 despite the lapse of more than one year and despite the fact it carries a specific direction adverse to him cannot now, raise grievance against when an order is passed by the Ombudsman for its implementation unless there is a proper explanation for the delay. The fact that no time limit is prescribed for filing a writ petition cannot be a reason for mounting challenge against an order after an unreasonably long period without a proper explanation for the delay. In the circumstances I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE.
dlk