JUDGMENT :

S.Manikumar, J.

Before the Lok Ayukta, respondent No.4 made Complaint No.1279/2012, by which, the following allegations have been made:

“I am an agriculturist under the Vellani Kole Pada Karshaka Sangham bearing Registration No.275/93, P.O. Karanchira, Thrissur-680 702. I have got paddy land in my name and in the name of my wife extending to about 9 acres. The other agriculturists in the same paddy lands have got about 30 acres of paddy cultivation. All this was lost in the floods of 2010.

2. Prior to the actual cultivation, complainant and his wife on 20.01.10 as per receipt bearing No.53, Ext.P1, receipt No.54, Ext.P2 in total an amount of Rs.2628/- was remitted to the Vellani Kole Pada Karshaka Sangham. Only if this amount is remitted can one have the paddy cultivation. I had informed the President of the Karshaka Sangham that because of the water in the property on account of the flood, cultivation is getting destroyed and that water has to be drained out and the complaint was lodged on 25.03.2010. But based on Ext. P3, no steps were taken on behalf of the Sangham. ..”

2. Though the complainant had given several representations before various authorities, no reply was given.

3. Having regard to the nature of allegations made in Complaint No.1279/2012, the Lok Ayukta directed an enquiry. After conducting an enquiry and examining several witnesses, the Superintendent of Police (Additional Charge), Investigation Agency, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Lok Ayukta, submitted a report dated 26.07.2013 to the Kerala Lok Ayukta with the following recommendations:

“The report was given to the 4th respondent on the basis of the investigation which was not conducted honestly by the 1st and 2nd respondents, on the complaint given by the complainant to the 4th respondent. Hence, disciplinary action shall be initiated against the 1st and 2nd respondents.

Since the complainant has incurred a loss of Rs.1,36,200/-(One Lakh Thirty Six Thousand and Two Hundred) during the cultivation carried out in 2010, that has happened due to the act of negligence of the 3rd respondent, it is requested to direct the 4th respondent that this loss shall be recovered from the 3rd respondent.”

4. Secretary, Vellani Kolepada Karshaka Sangham Padasekhara Samithi, has filed a reply affidavit to the said complaint.

5. On 26.07.2016, the Kerala Lok Ayukta has passed the following order:

“The Investigation Agency has submitted a report under which it has been found that on account of maladministration on the part of the 3rd respondent Secretary, Vellani Kolppada Karshaka Sangham, the complainant has sustained a loss of Rs.1,36,200/-. The report also recommends that the 4th respondent should be directed to recover the amount from the 3rd respondent and to facilitate payment of the same to the complainant. We find that no objection whatsoever has been filed to this report by the 3rd respondent Society. Significantly, the 3rd respondent has not filed any defence statement at all to the complaint. Under these circumstances, we find every justification passing the following interim order. The 3rd respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards the complainant's claims for compensation against 3rd respondent on the basis of the report submitted by the Investigation Agency. The 4th respondent is directed to ensure that the 3rd respondent makes the payment.”

6. Being aggrieved, instant writ petition is filed on the grounds inter alia that the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against Vellani Kolepada Karshaka Sangham Padasekhara Samithi represented by the Secretary/writ petitioner. In support of the above contention, Mr.Rinu S. Aswan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would not fall under section 2(o) which defines who is a public servant under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order of the Lok Ayukta in Complaint No.1279/2012 dated 26.07.201