The Ombudsman lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate private civil disputes; such matters must be resolved in civil courts.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2026)

Writ Appeal No. 2108/2024 is filed by the appellant as against the dismissal of WP(C)No.26595/2019 dated 25.10.2024 in a common order passed by the learned Single Judge along with the WP(C) No. 14943/2023. Wherein the appellant filed the writ petition for directing the State and the 5^th respondent Municipal Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram to implement the order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the Revenue Divisional officer, Thiruvananthapuram which came to be dismissed and hence the present appeal.

2. The WA. No. 1899/2024 filed by the very appellant as against allowing the writ petition filed by the Secretary, Municipal corporation, Thiruvananthapuram in WP(C) No. 14943/2023 dated 25.10.2024 in the common order wherein the Municipal Corporation challenged the order of the Ombudsman passed in Ext.P7 order dated 14.06.2022. Wherein the Ombudsman for Local Self Government directed the Municipal Corporation to construct the compound wall of the appellant and then recover the same from the adjacent owner of the appellant.

3. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the appellant in both the appeals. The counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation and HGP appeared for the State and argued at length.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contented that the Single Judge committed error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner where the RDO passed the order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. on 09.01.2018.

5. The respondent No. 7 Vidyalathika served and unrepresented. The learned counsel for the appellant has contented that the Single Judge of this Court has committed error in dismissing the writ petition filed by him for implementation of the RDO's order on 09.01.2018, where the RDO clearly stated in the said order by directing the respondents 6 and 7 to put up the construction of the compound wall within 14 days from 09.01.2018. But the same was not complied. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition directing the State Government as well as the corporation to implement the order of the RDO dated 09.01.2018. But the Single Judge has contented that the order is not implementable as the civil suit is already pending and a decree was obtained by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner obtained only a decree for prohibitory injunction and he has withdrawn the relief of mandatory injunction. Therefore, he cannot claim any mandatory injunction either for the purpose of construction or getting any damages. Therefore, the order under challenge is ought to be set aside. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal and pass an order to direct the State to implement the order of RDO dated 09.01.2018.

6. In the WA No. 1899/2024, the learned counsel for the appellant has contented that the appellant approached the Municipal Corporation by filing a complaint against the neighbours for excavation of the soil, as per Section 414 of the Kerala Municipality Act they have power to stop the excavation. Though they issued notice to the appellant persons and neighboring owners but no action was taken by the Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the appellant forced to approach the Ombudsman appointed under the Local Self Government and accordingly the Ombudsman appointed for the Local Self Government issued the notice and passed the order directing the Municipal Corporation to put up the construction of the compound wall and then recover the expenditures from the opponents. The counsel for the corporation infact sought one month time for executing the order but thereafter they filed the writ petition before this Court.

7. The learned Single Judge of this Court committed error in holding that the Ombudsman is having no power to decide the civil dispute between the private parties and allowing the writ petition by quashing the order of the Ombudsman is not correct. Even till today, order of