Ashok Bhushan, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat as well as the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 7.7.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 10733 of 2015, by which, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent. The brief facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings of the writ petition are as follows:-

The appellant had filed a complaint, Ext. P7, before the Kerala Lok Ayukta arraying seven respondents, wherein, the Grama Panchayat was the first respondent. In the complaint, allegations of corruption, maladministration, favouritism etc. were made in connection with the execution of a concession agreement under B.O.T. basis in favour of the 4th respondent therein. The Lok Ayukta issued an order, Ext. P8, on 12.3.2015 directing the first and fourth respondents not to proceed with the construction work in the petition schedule property and issued a notice, Ext. P9, on 21.3.2015 asking the Panchayat to appear on 16.6.2015. Challenging Ext. P8 order, the writ petition was filed seeking for the following reliefs:-

"i. issue a Certiorari or any other writ order or direction quashing/setting aside Exhibit-P8 order;

ii. declare that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain and to proceed with Exhibit - P7 complaint;

iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to drop all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit - P7 complaint."

The issue raised in the writ petition was that the complaint filed by the appellant before the Lok Ayukta was not maintainable and it is barred by Sec. 271O of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1994'). The learned Single Judge proceeded to examine the said submission and held that the Lok Ayukta shall have no jurisdiction in view of the provisions contained in Sec. 271O, which were inserted with non obstante clause in the Act 1994. The writ petition was allowed leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to agitate the allegations before the Ombudsman. The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment, has come up in the writ appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the writ appeal, contends that the complaint filed by the appellant before the Lok Ayukta was fully maintainable. It is submitted that the provisions brought in the Act 1994 by adding Sec. 271O shall not take away the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1999) to consider the complaint. He submits that the definition of public servant' as given in Sec. 2(o) of the Act 1999 is vide enough to include any local authority or other public servant. It is further contended that although under Sec. 271O sub-section (1) complaints both against public servant as well as Local Self Government Institution have to be transferred, but the bar as contained in Sec.271O(3) is only with regard to public servants and not against the Local Self Government institutions. Hence, the complaint filed was fully maintainable. He further submits that in the complaint, certain other persons were arrayed including the Deputy Director, who was not covered by any complaint before the Ombudsman and the jurisdiction to proceed with the said complaint is still lying with the Lok Ayukta. Learned counsel further submits that the non obstante clause in Sec. 271O(1) has to be given harmonious construction and the said provision cannot be treated as a provision, which has any direct conflict with the provisions of the Act 1999.

3. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

4. The Act 1999 was introduced to make provision for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for making enquiries into any action relatable to ma