The High Court will not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 to review an Ombudsman's factual findings regarding allegations, especially where the petitioner makes omnibus claims without substantiated evidence.

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

W.P.(MD)No.8058 of 2026 has been filed challenging the order of the Local Bodies Ombudsman with regard to certain allegations levelled as against the Commissioner of Corporation. W.P.(MD)Nos.

8217 and 8249 of 2026 are filed seeking a direction to implement the orders of the Ombudsman.

2.Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions are identical, all the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed by way of this common order.

3.The petitioner, who is a Councillor of Nagercoil Corporation, had lodged complaints before the Local Bodies Ombudsman alleging various irregularities against the Commissioner of the Corporation in relation to execution of public works, namely installation of cameras, laying of paver blocks, illegal removal of soil and publication of tender related advertisements in social media.

4.The Ombudsman, upon conducting enquiry and considering the materials placed on record, found that though several allegations had been raised, only certain allegations were supported by prima facie materials. In respect of the remaining allegations, the Ombudsman found that there are no valid and sufficient evidence. Consequently, the Ombudsman recommended appropriate enquiry and further action in respect of the allegations which required verification and directed the competent authorities to proceed in accordance with law.

5.We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the entire materials placed on record.

6.The allegations levelled by the petitioner are omnibus in nature. Mere raising certain allegations without substantiating the same by valid materials, would not confer any right upon the petitioner to insist that all charges should necessarily be held proved. The Ombudsman, being the fact finding authority, has considered the records and arrived at a conclusion that certain allegations warrant further enquiry.

7.When the Ombudsman taking note of the available records found that several charges have not been established, the same cannot be questioned in a writ petition. It is well settled that such disputed questions of fact cannot ordinarily be gone into in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8.Hence, we do not find any merits in challenging the order of the Ombudsmen in respect of the disallowed portion of the charges. In such view of the matter, the writ petition challenging the order of the Ombudsmen deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.

9.However, insofar as the allegations in respect of which recommendations have been made by the Ombudsman, the authorities concerned are directed to implement the recommendations of the Ombudsman and proceed further in accordance with law. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10.With the above observations and directions, W.P.(MD)No.

8058 of 2026 is dismissed and W.P.(MD)Nos.7866 and 8217 of 2026 are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.