IMPORTANT POINT
The Ombudsman's jurisdiction is limited to investigating allegations of corruption or maladministration and cannot adjudicate on private disputes. Availability of other remedies before the Tribunal and the limitations on the scope of powers in passing interim orders were emphasized.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioner challenges orders issued by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions in Complaint No.486/2019 and also seeks for a direction to dismiss the said complaint. A declaration has also been sought that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the second respondent or to issue orders in the nature of those impugned in this writ petition.

2. Petitioner claims to have succeeded to one cent of property of his father, over which a house is situated. Alleging that petitioner has not constructed a soak pit and is discharging septic waste into the property of the second respondent, a complaint was filed before the Ombudsman, pointing out that, despite complaints to the Panchayat, no action has been initiated.

3. Even though the Panchayat Secretary filed a statement before the Ombudsman that earlier, petitioner's father used to discharge waste into the second respondent's property, at present, there was no such nuisance still, by Ext.P4 order, the Ombudsman directed the Panchayat Secretary to inspect the property and to give instructions to install a sewage treatment facility in the petitioner's property and also directed to ensure that the nuisance is abated. After the petitioner's father died, petitioner was impleaded in the proceedings before the Ombudsman. Thereafter, on 26-06-2023, the Ombudsman was informed by the Secretary that a notice had been issued to the petitioner abate the nuisance. However, after observing that issuance of a notice by the Secretary is not sufficient and instead, the waste treatment facility itself must be installed, the Ombudsman directed the parties to be heard Secretary and to initiate action to compel such installation, failing which it was threatened that the salary of the Secretary shall be withheld. Various orders have also been issued by the Ombudsman on 11-10-2022 and 17-04-2023 in a bid to abate the alleged nuisance being caused to the second respondent.

4. Sri. N. Anand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to issue orders in the nature of Ext.P4 and Ext.P6 is questionable. The learned counsel contended that as per the provisions of Section 271J of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), such a power is not available and that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman arises only when there is a prima facie finding regarding the existence of corruption or maladministration by a public servant and that, in none of the orders impugned, has the Ombudsman found any maladministration or corruption. It was further submitted that the Ombudsman could not have issued any order directing a particular act to be performed in a particular manner. Even otherwise, it was contended that the nature of orders that can be issued by the Ombudsman is limited in scope, and it cannot dictate the manner or nature of orders that are to be issued by the local authorities. It was further submitted that the order issued by the Panchayat Secretary as Ext.P7 and Ext.P9 were at the dictation of the Ombudsman, and therefore, the petitioner was not even granted an opportunity of hearing.

5. Sri. S.K. Balachandran, the learned counsel for the second respondent, on the other hand, contended that the discharge of faecal waste into the second respondent's property was causing serious prejudice and that the orders of the Ombudsman were only intended to redress the said grievance. According to the learned counsel, despite repeated directions, petitioner had not taken any effort to avoid such discharge. It was further submitted that the complaint before the Ombudsman had clearly mentioned instances of corruption and maladministration by the Secretary, and therefore, the Ombudsman has the jurisdiction to issue orders of this nature.

6. I have considered the rival contentions.

7. Before dealing with the factual aspects, it is essential to briefly delve into the limits of the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, which is limited in