SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2915

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
G. Gopal - Petitioner
Versus
The Ombudsman, Tamilnadu Local Bodies Ombudsman and Ors. – Respondents
WP.No.28571 of 2022 & WMP No.27866 of 2022
Decided On : 16-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. C. Suraj.
For the Respondents: Mr. B. Nedunchezhian, Mrs. P.T. Ramadevi.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Ombudsman's jurisdiction is limited by the provisions of the Tamilnadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act 2014, particularly with regard to enquiring into matters already pending before the court or complaints filed after the expiry of five years from the date of occurrence.

Headnote:

Jurisdiction - Tamilnadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act 2014 - Section 12, Section 7, Section 10 - The court quashed the impugned Order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the first respondent on the Complaint No.48/Ma/2022 filed by the third respondent, based on the grounds that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and give a direction to take action to cancel the document and change the revenue records. The court referred to the provisions of the Tamilnadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act 2014, particularly Section 7 and Section 10, to establish that the Ombudsman could not enquire into matters already pending before the court or complaints filed after the expiry of five years from the date of occurrence.

Fact of the Case:

The Writ Petition was filed to quash the impugned Order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the first respondent on the Complaint No.48/Ma/2022 filed by the third respondent, alleging certain allegations against the staff of the local panchayat in not taking any steps to preserve the properties which were originally gifted to the Panchayat.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and give a direction to take action to cancel the document and change the revenue records. The impugned Order was set aside on the grounds that it was without jurisdiction.

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to entertain the complaint and give a direction to take action to cancel the document and change the revenue records.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Tamilnadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act 2014, particularly Section 7 and Section 10, to establish that the Ombudsman could not enquire into matters already pending before the court or complaints filed after the expiry of five years from the date of occurrence.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed and the impugned Order passed by the first respondent dated 27.09.2022 was set aside. No costs were awarded.

ORDER :

(Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed, under the Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned Order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the first respondent on the Complaint No.48/Ma/2022 filed by the third respondent.)

This Writ Petition has been filed to to quash the impugned Order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the first respondent on the Complaint No.48/Ma/2022 filed by the third respondent.

2. The impugned Order has been passed on the basis of the complaint preferred by one Velmurugan alleging certain allegations against the staff of the local panchayat in not taking any steps to preserve the properties which were originally gifted to the Panchayat. On the basis of the complaint, the Ombudsman, the first respondent herein, has passed the impugned Order directing the second respondent to take action to cancel the document registered among the family members of the petitioner in respect of the land originally gifted to the Panchayat. In an earlier occasion, similar Order has been passed by the first respondent, which has been quashed by this Court in W.P.No.30708 of 2019 on the ground that no opportunity, whatsoever, is given to the Writ Petitioner. Taking note of the violation of principles of natural justice, that said Order came to be set aside by an Order dated 07.02.2022 with a direction to the first respondent to give proper notice to the Writ Petitioner and pass Orders. Taking note of the direction, onceagain similar direction has been passed by the first respondent. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint and give a direction to take action to cancel the document and also to change the revenue records.

3. In the counter, it is stated by the first respondent that Section 12 of the Tamilnadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act 2014 empowers the Ombudsman to dispose of the complaint forwarded for criminal offences. Accordingly, it is their contention in the counter that as the allegation is pertaining to the officials, who have not preserved the properties, the complaint has been given and the first respondent conducted enquiry and Order has been passed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the complainant before the Ombudsman is none other than the 12th defendant in the suit in O.S.No.120 of 2015 filed by the petitioner, originally pending before Sub Ordinate Judge, Ponneri and later renumbered as O.S.No.134 of 2022 before the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvottiyur and the said suit has been filed for declaration to declare that the suit property absolutely belong to the petitioner and also to cancel the alleged settlement deed said to have been executed by the Power of Attorney of the erstwhile owner. The concerned local body has also been made as the eighth defendant in the suit. Hence, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, besides the complaint is exfacie barred by limitation. Hence, the entire Order of the Ombudsman is without jurisdiction.

5. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the Tamilnadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act 2014 empowers Ombudsman to go into the question of alleged corruption incidental thereto and proper enquiry has been conducted subsequent to the direction of this Court and Orders have been passed. Hence, the Ombudsman has got ample power to entertain the complaint.

6. I have perused entire records. As the very crux of the matter is the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, it is relevant to extract the object of the the Tamilnadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act 2014 for better appreciation of the facts, which reads as follows :

    “An Act to provide for the establishment of Ombudsman for conducting enquiry on the allegations against the elected members of the local bodies and the officers and employees working under the local bodies in the State of Tamil Nadu and for matters connected therewith and inc

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top