IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
Secretary, Poovachal Grama Panchayat – Petitioner
Versus
Secretary, Ombudsman For Local Self Government – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 8180 of 2015
Decided On : 01-11-2023
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Sections 271F, (1)(b) and (1)(c) - Collection of gate fee - Auction cancelled - Refund of amount - Issue a writ of certiorari or direction calling upon records pertaining to Ext.P5 and to quash Ext.P5 - Complaint seeking refund of amount deposited by way of earnest money deposit for participating in public auction will not come under definition of “allegation” or “complaint.”
Findings of the Court:
Complaint can be filed before Ombudsman against a public servant or a Local Self Government Institution on allegation that such person or institution is guilty of corruption or maladministration - There is no such allegation by second respondent before Ombudsman against Panchayat - He has approached Ombudsman only for return of earnest money deposit made by second respondent, at time of participating in public auction - Complaint seeking refund of amount deposited by way of earnest money deposit for participating in public auction will not come under definition of “allegation” or “complaint” as enumerated in Section 271F of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Ext.P5 order in complaint passed by Ombudsman is set aside.
Result: Writ Petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
1. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent-Ombudsman has no power or jurisdiction to decide the issue for return of earnest money deposit. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the definitions of ‘allegation’ as well as the ‘complaint’ as per Sections 271F(1)(b) and 271F(1)(c) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
5. On 22.3.2023, learned counsel for the second respondent sought time for filing counter affidavit before this Court. But, no counter affidavit is seen filed in this writ petition.
6. It is seen that the issue involved in this writ petition, regarding the refund of earnest money deposit of Rs.1 lakh made by the second respondent at the time of participating in the auction conducted by the Panchayat for collection of gate fee, is purely based on terms and conditions of contract entered into between the Panchayat and the second respondent. After participating in the auction, the second respondent did not comply with the terms and conditions enumerated in the agreement for public auction and it was stated that he had participated in the auction without knowing the rules and conditions.
7. Section 271F(1)(b) and (c) reads as follows:
(1) (b) allegation:
(a) in relation to a public servant means, any affirmation that such public servant:
(i) has abused his position as such for any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person.
(ii) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives.
(iii) is guilty of corruption, favouritism, nepotism or lack of integrity.
(iv) is guilty of any action as public servant which facilitates or causes to make any loss, waste or misapplication of money or other property of the Local Self Government Institution.
(b) In relation to a Local Self Government Institution means any affirmation that such Local Self Government Institution has defaulted or acted in excess of its powers in the discharge of its functions imposed on it by law or in implementing the lawful orders and directions of the Government.
(
Kulukkalloor Grama Panchayath vs. Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institution and Others
Complaint can be filed before Ombudsman against a public servant or a Local Self Government Institution on allegation that such person or institution is guilty of corruption or maladministration.
An Ombudsman lacks jurisdiction to entertain complaints concerning refunds of deposits under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
The Ombudsman must thoroughly investigate allegations of maladministration under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, as failure to do so undermines the procedures for addressing public grievances.
Point of law : Despite receipt of notice, apart from filing a statement by some of members of Committee, no one else has cared to adduce any evidence or produce any documents before Ombudsman to just....
Section 3 of Act, 1882 defines ‘actionable claim’ means a claim to any debt, other than a debt secured by mortgage of 9 immovable property.
The Ombudsman must ensure jurisdiction and provide fair hearing before entertaining complaints under the relevant act.
Point of law: Master of the tender is the tender inviting authority and it is for the said authority to decide whom to be chosen to carry out the contract.
Court directs bank to consider representation for earnest deposit refund in restricted land auction without merits adjudication.
Parties participating in public auctions are entitled to refunds of deposits when the auction process is improperly cancelled.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.