Ombudsman Must Enquire Into Complaints Of Maladministration Under Panchayat Raj Act, Can't Relegate Parties To Other Forums: Kerala High Court

Justice P.M. Manoj set aside an order of the Ombudsman that relegated, to the Rent Control Court, a complaint raising issues of maladministration and loss caused to the Panchayat due to renting of a premise at a lower rate than that offered by the petitioner association.

On finding that the Ombudsman did not exercise its powers as statutorily contemplated under Sections 271J, 271K, 271M, 271N and 271Q of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (1994), the Court felt it fit to remand the complaint back to the Ombudsman.

The Court observed:

“it is the duty of the Ombudsman to enquire into the complaints raised…regarding maladministration and the alleged loss caused to the Panchayat. However, since the matter has not been disposed of as contemplated under Section 271Q, I deem it appropriate to interfere with the order passed by the Ombudsman. Accordingly, the order passed by the Ombudsman is set aside, as there is no material to show that the Ombudsman exercised jurisdiction in the manner contemplated under Sections 271J, 271K, 271M, 271N and 271Q. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the authority for fresh consideration.”

Section 271Q lays down the manner in which the Ombudsman must dispose of complaints not involving criminal offences. Sections 271J and 271K respectively provides the functions and powers of the Ombudsman; Section 271M deal with manner of investigation and Section 271N lays down power of enquiry.

The petitioner before the Court was a Co-operative Society, which had been allotted an area on a commercial building owned by the Kannur Panchayat. According to the petitioner, the area was allotted at a fixed rate, subject to revision every 5 years; and on those terms, an agreement was entered into with the Panchayat.

Later, the Panchayat informed its decision not to allot the premise to the petitioner and to refund the amount of around Rs. 1 lakh already deposited. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Ombudsman with a complaint.

In the complaint, it was contended that on the basis of the agreement, the petitioner took possession of the allotted rooms and received the keys to the same. Since the purpose for renting the same was to start a DTP centre, the petitioner had invited quotes for purchase of equipment and paid advances also. An application in this regard was submitted before the Panchayat as well.

According to the petitioner, it came to know about the agreement being cancelled from a newspaper publication and on reaching the premises, it was found that the locks on the rooms had been replaced by the Panchayat. The petitioner came before the Ombudsman seeking compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for loss suffered, to set aside the resolution to cancel the allotment to the petitioner and to realize the loss caused to the Panchayat due to the maladministration and corruption of its officers.

The Panchayat officials filed objections before the Ombudsman. It was stated the Secretary hastily entered into an agreement without waiting for a final decision by its Executive. Thereafter, since the decision to cancel the agreement was taken, the entire amount was refunded to the petitioner. The allegation regarding change of locks was also denied.

Later on, the petitioner came to know that the room was allotted to another entity at a lesser rent and this was not a real person. Making out these allegations, the petitioner filed a proof affidavit before the Ombudsman along with documents and sought further enquiry into the matter. However, the matter was relegated before the Rent Control Court and concluded that there was no maladministration or corruption without adducing evidence or conducting enquiry. At this juncture, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The Court looked into the provisions under the Panchayat Raj Act, which deal with the powers, and functions of the Ombudsman. It also relied on previous decisions of the High Court that considered the ambit of powers of the Ombudsman while dealing with a complaint regarding maladministration and loss caused to Panchayat.

Looking at the impugned order, the Court found that Ombudsman had primarily relied on the documents produced by the Panchayat and did not properly consider the issue of loss caused while disposing of the complaint.

“In the light of the scheme and provisions of the Act, such an approach cannot be said to be a proper exercise of the powers vested in the Ombudsman. Since a specific complaint has been raised by the petitioner with respect to the loss sustained… the premises was rented out to another association at a rate lower than that offered by the petitioner. This aspect has not been considered by the Ombudsman in its proper perspective, in accordance with the objective underlying the appointment of the Ombudsman,” the Court added.

Thus, it remanded the complaint back to the Ombudsman for fresh consideration and clarified that the parties are at liberty to produce materials to substantiate their contentions. The same is directed to be completed within 6 months.

Case No: WP(C) No. 14277 of 2020

Case Title: Kannur District Panchayath Employees and Pensioners v. Kannur District Panchayat and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 243

Counsel for the petitioner: Sivadsan T., R. Ramadas

Counsel for the respondent: C. Krishnan (Kannur), C. Leena

Click to Read/Download Judgment