JOHN A. , ANSONS GROUP, ARCHITECTS Vs. CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33422 of 2010 has filed this review petition seeking a review of the judgment delivered by me on 10.11.2010. By the said judgment, I dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, reserving liberty with the petitioner to institute a suit in the court of competent jurisdiction seeking the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition.

(2.) The writ petition was filed on 2.11.2010 seeking the following reliefs:-

(3.) Relying on section 271 J of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the learned counsel for the review petition contended that the Ombudsman is competent to investigate any allegation contained in a complaint and pass an order directing payment of compensation and reimbursement of the loss suffered by the complainant, and therefore, the petitioner's claim for payment for the work done is maintainable before the Ombudsman. I am afraid, the said contention is without any merit. The terms 'allegation' has been defined in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271 F of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The term 'complaint' has been defined in clause (c) thereof. On a reading of the said provisions, it cannot be said that claim for money made by a citizen, whatever be the ground for raising such a claim, from a local authority can be the subject matter of a complaint before the Ombudsman unless the claim for money is by way of compensation as a result of an act of mal-administration. I am therefore of the opinion that the relief sought for by the petition in this review petition cannot be granted. The review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.