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.

JUDGMENT :

P.M. MANOJ, J.

1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Ombudsman in O.P. No.264/2016, on the ground that the same was rendered without exercising the jurisdiction and without duly invoking the functions and powers envisaged under Sections 271J, 271K, 271M, 271N and 271Q of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. The 1^st respondent, the District Panchayat, had allotted an area of 604 sq. ft. on the ground floor of a commercial building to the petitioner society on the basis of a resolution passed by the Finance Committee of the District Panchayat, as evidenced by Ext.P1. The said decision was later communicated by the Secretary of the 1^st respondent through Ext.P2 letter.

3. It is further stated that an extent of 707 sq. ft. in the said building was allotted to the petitioner society at a rent of Rs.60 per sq. ft., with a provision for revision once in every five years, and the petitioner was directed to enter into an agreement with the respondent Panchayat. Accordingly, Ext.P3 agreement was executed between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent.

4. Subsequently, by Ext.P4, the 1^st respondent informed the petitioner that, as per Resolution No.20/2016 of the District Panchayat dated 04.02.2016, it was decided not to allot the said premises to the petitioner. It was further intimated that the amount already deposited by the petitioner in the DPF A-1 account of the Panchayat, amounting to Rs.1,08,720/-, would be refunded, and a cheque for the said amount was enclosed.

5. In such circumstances, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 complaint before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, as provided under Section 271G of the Act. It is specifically contended therein that, on the basis of the agreement dated 01.10.2015, the petitioner had received the key of the allotted rooms and had taken possession of the same for the purpose of starting a DTP and photostat centre. For this purpose, the petitioner invited quotations for the purchase of computers and photostat machines and also paid advances. The petitioner further states that the premises required furnishing and, accordingly, an application was submitted before the Panchayat seeking permission for the same.

6. It is further contended that, from a publication in the newspaper dated 04.02.2016, the petitioner came to know that the agreement entered into with the 1^st respondent had been cancelled. Upon reaching the premises, the petitioner realized that the lock installed by the petitioner had been removed and a new lock had been installed by the 1^st respondent, thereby preventing the petitioner society from functioning in terms of the agreement. It is further contended by the petitioner that they had paid three months’ advance rent to the 1^st respondent. However, due to certain internal decisions, the agreement was subsequently cancelled, whereby the rent that would have otherwise accrued to the District Panchayat was also lost. With these contentions, the petitioner approached the Ombudsman seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loss allegedly suffered, to set aside the resolution passed by the Finance Standing Committee, to realise the loss caused to the Panchayat on account of alleged maladministration and corruption on the part of the respondents, and also to award costs.

7. The respondents filed Ext.P6 objections to the complaint. It is stated therein that, although the Finance Standing Committee had considered the matter on 23.09.2015, no final decision was taken. However, presuming that the same would be approved by the Executive Committee, the Secretary proceeded to enter into an agreement with the petitioner. It is further contended that, being the last meeting of the then existing committee, there was a delay in preparing and signing the minutes. Additionally, due to the heavy workload asso