JOSE V.JACOB Vs. THALAYOLAPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat as well as the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

(2.) This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 7.7.2015 in W.P.(C) No.10733 of 2015, by which, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent. The brief facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings of the writ petition are as follows :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the writ appeal, contends that the complaint filed by the appellant before the Lok Ayukta was fully maintainable. It is submitted that the provisions brought in the Act 1994 by adding Sec.271 O shall not take away the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1999) to consider the complaint. He submits that the definition of 'public servant' as given in Sec.2(o) of the Act 1999 is vide enough to include any local authority or other public servant. It is further contended that although under Sec.271 O sub-section(1) complaints both against public servant as well as Local Self Government Institution have to be transferred, but the bar as contained in Sec.271 O(3) is only with regard to public servants and not against the Local Self Government institutions. Hence, the complaint filed was fully maintainable. He further submits that in the complaint, certain other persons were arrayed including the Deputy Director, who was not covered by any complaint before the Ombudsman and the jurisdiction to proceed with the said complaint is still lying with the Lok Ayukta. Learned counsel further submits that the non obstante clause in Sec.271 O(1) has to be given harmonious construction and the said provision cannot be treated as a provision, which has any direct conflict with the provisions of the Act 1999.