Ombudsman’s decision invalidated due to failure in exercising statutory jurisdiction, case remanded for reconsideration.
The Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice P.M. Manoj, has set aside an order by the Ombudsman in a case concerning the Kannur District Panchayat Employees and Pensioners Co-Operative Society Ltd. The court determined that the Ombudsman did not exercise its powers as per the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, necessitating a fresh inquiry into allegations of maladministration, corruption, and irregularities.
The case arose from a dispute regarding the allotment of commercial space by the Kannur District Panchayat to the petitioner society. Initially, a resolution was passed to allot 707 sq. ft. of space to the society at a rent of Rs. 60 per sq. ft., with provisions for revision every five years. An agreement was executed, and the petitioner took possession of the space to set up a DTP and photostat center. However, the allotment was later revoked, and the petitioner was informed that the deposit would be refunded, as per a new resolution by the District Panchayat.
Following this, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman, asserting that the cancellation was the result of maladministration and corruption, seeking compensation for losses incurred. The Ombudsman, however, relegated the matter to the Rent Control Court, concluding there was no maladministration or corruption, a decision now overturned by the High Court.
Justice Manoj observed that the Ombudsman failed to conduct a proper inquiry as mandated under Sections 271J, 271K, and 271Q of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, which outline the Ombudsman’s duties in addressing allegations of corruption and maladministration in Local Self Government Institutions. The court emphasized the Ombudsman’s obligation to investigate thoroughly and ensure accountability, highlighting the powers akin to those of a Civil Court vested in the Ombudsman for conducting inquiries.
The court referenced previous judgments, including Mayor of Kochi v. Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions and Entheen Muhammed v. Manandavadi Grama Panchayat, underscoring the Ombudsman’s duty to secure relief for grievances related to maladministration and financial losses.
Consequently, the High Court has remanded the case to the Ombudsman for fresh consideration, instructing both parties to present substantial evidence to support their claims. The court has mandated the completion of this inquiry within six months, ensuring that the statutory objectives of addressing maladministration and corruption are upheld.
This judgment reinforces the accountability mechanisms within the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, emphasizing the need for thorough investigations by the Ombudsman to uphold the integrity of Local Self Government Institutions.
Bottom line:-
Ombudsman under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, is required to exercise its powers and perform functions as envisaged under Sections 271J, 271K, 271M, and 271Q, to conduct proper enquiries into allegations of corruption, maladministration, or irregularities in Local Self Government Institutions.
Statutory provision(s): Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 Sections 271J, 271K, 271M, 271N, 271Q.
