MALATHI PRABHAKARAN, PRESIDENT, KILIMANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT Vs. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, who are the President and the members of the Kilimanoor Grama Panchayat, have filed this writ petition, challenging Ext. P18 order dtd. 6/3/2010 passed by the Ombudsman for the Local Self Government Institutions in Complaint No. 950 of 2010, whereby the Ombudsman directed the Kilimanoor Grama Panchayat to recover the loss suffered on account of the contract awarded to M/s. Sivaram Electricals during the year 2008 from the petitioners.

(2.) Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioners were respondents 4 to 17 in complaint No. 950 of 2010 filed by the third respondent-Ravi Varma K., Manager, Kerala State Industrial Enterprises Limited, Thiruvananthapuram, which was originally filed against the Secretary of the Kilimanoor Grama Panchayat-second respondent, the President of the Panchayat and the Chairman of the Standing Committee for the welfare of the Panchayat. Subsequently, the petitioners were implemented in their personal capacity. The 4th respondent, namely one S. Krishnan Kutty Nair, Kilimanoor, Thiruvananthapuram, has got himself impleaded in the complaint allegedly on the ground of public interest.

(3.) The subject matter leading to the complaint are as follows: The Kilimanoor Grama Panchayat has invited tenders for the supply of the single tube set 1 x 40 w with aluminum body, choke, starter, power factor, improvement, capacitor with tube, mode BJSAL 2400 or equivalent with bend pipe, clamp, nuts, bolt, 3 meter wire as per Ext. P1 notification dtd. 28/7/2008 published in the newspapers. Three persons responded to the tender notification and submitted their quotation, true copies of which are produced as Exts.P2 to P4. However, the Panchayat found that the above quoted rates for single tube were highly excessive and therefore, the Panchayat in its meeting adopted a resolution, as per decision No. I(1) dtd. 16/8/2008 not to accept the quotations, as they were exorbitant in nature and accordingly, it was decided to call for fresh tenders, evident from Ext. P5 minutes. Consequently, Ext. P6 notification dtd. 16/8/2008 was published in the newspaper, pursuant to which 5 persons responded and their bids were as follows: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_301_LAWS(KER)11_2021_1.jpg</IMG>