An Ombudsman lacks jurisdiction to entertain complaints concerning refunds of deposits under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are the Nedumbassery Grama Panchayat and its Secretary. They seek to challenge Ext.P12 order issued by the Ombudsman for the Local Self Government Institutions on a complaint filed by the 4^th respondent herein.

2. The 4^th respondent had constructed a multi-storey building within the limits of the 1^st petitioner Panchayat. So as to obtain water connection to the said building, the 4^th respondent says that he deposited an amount of Rs.3,36,675/- with the Panchayat. According to the 3^rd respondent, he, having completed the entire work, the afore amount ought to have been returned to him with reference to the various Clauses contained in Ext.P3 agreement entered into with the Panchayat. Insofar as the Panchayat did not refund the afore amount, the petitioner preferred a complaint before the Ombudsman as above. The Ombudsman, by the impugned order Ext.P12, has found that the retention of the afore amount is incorrect and illegal, directing the afore amount to be refunded to the 4^th respondent herein. It is the afore direction, that is being challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri. George Sebastian, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. J. Surya, the learned counsel for the

4^th respondent herein.

4. The short issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is as regards the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman in passing an order in the nature of one at Ext.P12.

5. The fact that the 4^th respondent herein instituted the complaint before the Ombudsman seeking for refund of the deposit made as above is not in dispute. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Secretary, Poovachal Grama Panchayat v. Secretary, Ombudsman for Local Self Government [ 2023 (7) KHC 223 ], has considered the power of the Ombudsman under the provisions of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 , and found that under Section 271F , a complaint seeking refund of any amount deposited with the Panchayat could not be instituted under the afore provision. In view of the afore judgment, I am of the opinion that the Ombudsman was not justified in issuing the Ext.P12 order.

Resultantly, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P12. However, taking note of the contention raised by Smt. J. Surya, the right of the 4^th respondent to institute appropriate proceedings against the petitioners herein is left open. Needless to say that the contentions raised by the respective parties are also left open for consideration.

Sd/-