1. Petitioner Grama Panchayat is challenging Ext.P7 order issued by the 1st respondent, the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. The 2nd respondent had approached the 1st respondent with a complaint that the petitioner panchayat had failed in making payment of an amount of Rs.1,03,055/- due, towards cost of materials supplied by them on the basis of orders placed by the panchayat, for the purpose of execution of two Lift Irrigation works. It is alleged that, inspite of repeated demands made, the amount was not paid. The prayer made before the Ombudsman was to issue directions for payment of the amounts due.

2. Before the Ombudsman, the Secretary of the petitioner panchayat had filed Exts.P5 and P6 objections. In Ext.P5 it is contended that, convenors of the beneficiary committees had executed the works and the materials in question were not supplied to the panchayat, nor it was received by the panchayat. It was contended that the materials were accepted only by convenors of the works in question and therefore the panchayat has no liability. Specific denial of the liability was raised and it is contended that if any amount is due on the basis of the supply effected, the same has to be recovered from the 3rd respondent and others. In Ext.P6 also the said contentions were reiterated. It is stated that the panchayat had only issued a letter stating that the materials can be supplied to the convenors of the beneficiary committees and as per that letter the convenors have accepted those materials directly. It was only for introducing the convenors, such a letter was issued. There is no contract between the panchayat and the 2nd respondent entered for supply of any materials and no materials were supplied to the panchayat, is the contention.

3. In the impugned order, the Ombudsman found that the contentions of the panchayat cannot be accepted, because the materials were delivered pursuant to a letter issued by the Secretary. Therefore direction was issued to the petitioner panchayat to make payment of the amounts due from its 'own funds' and to recover the same from the Secretary was in charge during the relevant time, within a time limit stipulated.

4. I am not persuaded to interfere with Ext.P7 order on the basis of the merits of the dispute. But, learned counsel for the petitioner had raised a fundamental issue on the aspect of jurisdiction. Referring to Section 271-J of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, it was contended that the Ombudsman can perform only those functions enumerated therein. Section 271-J provides that the Ombudsman can investigate into any allegations contained in a complaint and can enquire into any complaint in which corruption or mal-administration of any Local Self Government Institution is alleged. It further provides that the Ombudsman can pass orders on the allegations in the manner specified therein. Learned counsel had referred to Section 271-F wherein the word "allegations" is defined. It enumerates that, in relation to a Local Self Government Institution, any affirmation that such institution has defaulted or acted in excess of its power in discharge of functions imposed on it by law, will amount to an allegation. Therefore, in order to constitute an 'allegation', there should be an affirmation to the effect that the panchayat had defaulted in discharge of functions imposed on it by law. I am of the considered opinion that, when the petitioner panchayat is disputing liability of the amount, it cannot be affirmed that it had defaulted in discharge of any functions imposed on it by law. The word "complaint" is also defined under Section 271-F, which includes an allegation that a Local Self Government Institution is guilty of corruption or mal-administration. The word "corruption" is given the same meaning as contained in the Indian Penal Code and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The word "mal-administration" is defined as any action taken or purporting to have been