BRINNER Vs. PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Common issue arises in these appeals is the scope and power of Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. Among the above appeals, W.A No.99 of 2023 is the leading case. The appellant therein approached the Ombudsman with a complaint against the officials in Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and also against the renovation of the church. The Ombudsman, after verifying the nature of allegation in the complaint, found that the complaint was not maintainable. This was challenged before this Court.

(2.) The learned Single Judge, after adverting to the powers of the Ombudsman and after noting Sec. 271M(4)(c) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, (for short the Act) had agreed with the finding of Ombudsman that the complaint was not maintainable. Sec. 271M(4)(b) states that Ombudsman shall not enquire into matters relating to any matter in respect of which a remedy is available from the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions constituted under Sec. 271S.

(3.) The writ appeal No.1911 of 2022 and 1912 of 2022 are related to a challenge made by the builder as against the interim order passed by the Ombudsman. Ombudsman passed an interdictory order stopping the construction and thereafter, by yet another order, ordered that investigation has to be conducted through higher officials and thereafter disposed of the writ petitions holding that complaint is not maintainable. The learned Single Judge relied on the judgment of another Single Judge which is impugned in Writ Appeal No.99 of 2023. The common issue is as to whether a complaint before the Ombudsman is maintainable in regard to issuance of building permit in violation of building rules.