The Ombudsman for Local Self Government cannot make observations beyond the confines of stipulated powers regarding disputes.

JUDGMENT

[WP(C) Nos.21308/2023, 26664/2023]

In these writ petitions, the respective petitioners seek to challenge the orders issued by the Ombudsman for the Local Self Government Institutions, contending that the orders issued as above are beyond the prescribed powers under the provisions of Section 271 (j) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act .

2. Heard Sri S.K. Adhithyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Suman Chakravarthy, the learned Standing Counsel for the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, as well as Sri P. Anoop, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent in W.P.(C) No. 21308 of 2023.

3. In W.P.(C) No. 21308 of 2023, the petitioner is stated to be residing in a property extending to 8.5 Ares in Thiruvallom Village. The 3^rd respondent sought to institute a suit for prohibitory injunction and, though originally an injunction was granted, the injunction granted in favour of the 3^rd respondent was vacated at the instance of the petitioner herein pursuant to Ext.P1 order. However, the 3^rd respondent thereafter instituted another complaint before the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman issued the order at Ext.P4. Though in Ext.P4 the ultimate finding of the Ombudsman is to the effect that if the 4^th respondent has any complaint, it is for him to make appropriate applications before the local authority concerned, even after finding so, the Ombudsman has made certain observations as regards the entitlement of the 3^rd respondent in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order dated 20.02.2023. It is seeking to challenge the afore directions/observations that the petitioner is before this Court.

4. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Ombudsman has no authority or power to enter into a roving enquiry and make observations as have been made in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Ext.P4. There is no dispute as regards the power of the Ombudsman, as has been held by this Court in Chandrakumar v. Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions ( 2024 (1) KHC 552 ) and Jyothi T.P. v. Ratnakaran and Others ( 2019 (1) KHC 459 ) Insofar as the dispute pointed out by the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C) No. 21308 of 2023 is essentially a dispute between the 3^rd respondent and the petitioner herein, the Ombudsman ought not to have made observations as have been made in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Ext.P4 order. Therefore, W.P.(C) No. 21308 of 2023 would stand allowed, holding that the observations in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Ext.P4 order would not have any binding effect. This would be without prejudice to the 3^rd respondent to point out his grievance in accordance with law in the pending civil suit between the parties or before other authorities, if so advised.

W.P.(C) No. 26664 of 2023 is also a similar case wherein the Ombudsman has issued certain observations pursuant to Ext.P9 order dated 10.03.2023. For the reasons stated while disposing of W.P.(C) No. 21308 of 2023, I allow this writ petition and hold that the observations made in Ext.P9 order as well as the consequential orders at Exts.P10 and P13 would stand set aside. Needless to say, the Ombudsman shall consider the complaint filed by the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law.

Sd/-