Back
2010 Supreme(SC) 1346
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MARKANDEY KATJU, T.S. THAKUR, JJ.
Mayor of Kochi – Appellant
Versus
Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7580 of 2004
Decided On : 29-09-2010
The Ombudsman's jurisdiction is limited to the powers conferred under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and must adhere to principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Ombudsman - Jurisdiction - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in a case involving the Ombudsman appointed under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The High Court set aside the Ombudsman's order due to a violation of principles of natural justice but held that the Ombudsman had jurisdiction to pass the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the appeal, leaving the question of law open, and observed that the Ombudsman has only those powers conferred on him under the Act and not otherwise.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, jurisdiction of the Ombudsman under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994
Ratio Decidendi: The Ombudsman has jurisdiction to pass orders under the Act but must adhere to principles of natural justice. The Ombudsman's powers are limited to those conferred under the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, leaving the question of law open, with the observation that the Ombudsman has only those powers conferred on him under the Act and not otherwise.
ORDER :
1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 5th December, 2003 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in O.P. No. 9483 of 2002.
2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here.
3. Against the order of the Ombudsman appointed under Chapter XXV B of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) a writ petition was filed in the High Court which has been disposed of by the impugned order. The High Court has set aside the order of the Ombudsman on the ground that there is a violation of principles of natural justice, but, at the same time, the High Court has held that the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to pass the order.
4. We are told that after remand, two fresh orders have been passed by the Ombudsman which have not yet been challenged.
5. In the circumstances, we dispose of this appeal, leaving the question of law open, with the observation that the Ombudsman has only those powers which are conferred on him under the Act and not otherwise. No costs.
