The Ombudsman is limited by a three-year time frame for enquirying into complaints as per Section 271M(4)(d) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be an elected member of the Chellanam Grama Panchayat and was its President in the year 2009. He had issued Ext.P1 certificate to the 6^th respondent herein for starting an LPG distribution agency. The 3^rd respondent herein later submitted Ext.P3 complaint to the 1^st respondent herein, pointing out that the petitioner, in his capacity as the President of Grama Panchayat, cannot issue such a certificate. The matter was referred for consideration by the 2^nd respondent Ombudsman pursuant to the order at Ext.P4 issued by the Secretary to the Government. The 2^nd respondent issued the order at Ext.P5 dated 02.09.2022, holding that the petitioner did not have the authority or power to issue Ext.P2 certificate, and the petitioner's actions amounted to an abuse of power. It is seeking to challenge the order issued at Ext.P5, that the petitioner has instituted the captioned writ petition.

2. I have heard Smt.Devika K.R., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.B.Unnnikrishna Kaimal, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent, the 3^rd respondent, who appeared in person, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, Panchayat, and the learned counsel for the 6^th respondent.

3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is with reference to the limitation prescribed under Section 271M (4)(d) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

4. The provisions of Section 271M to the extent relevant herein read as under: -

“271M. Investigation.- (1) The Ombudsman may, according to the provisions of this Act, enquire into any complaint filed before it under this Act.

…….

(4) The Ombudsman shall not enquire into matters relating to,-

…….

(d) any complaint filed after the expiry of three years from the date on which the matter complained against have taken place:”

Thus, the statute prescribes an outer time limit of three years from the date on which the matter complained of has taken place, for the Ombudsman to make enquiries in that regard. The term “complaint” under Section 271F (1)(c) of the Act is also relevant, and the same reads as under: -

“(c) 'Complaint' means a statement of allegation that a public servant or a Local Self Government Institution is guilty of corruption or maladministration and includes any reference to an allegation in respect of which suo motu enquiry has been proposed or recommendation for enquiry has been made by Government;”

Therefore, a complaint proposed on the recommendation for enquiry made on behalf of the Government is also covered under the limitation prescribed under Section 271M (4)(d) of the Act. In the case at hand, the act complained of having taken place admittedly in 2009, the complaint lodged by the 3^rd respondent in 2021, could not be entertained under Section 271. This crucial aspect has not been considered while issuing Ext.P5. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that Ext.P5 issued by the 2^nd respondent cannot be sustained, and the same would stand quashed.

Accordingly, this writ petition would stand allowed.

Sd/-