ANIL THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the limitation prescribed under Sec. 271M(4)(d) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 [for brevity, 'the Act, 1994'] applies to the Ombudsman appointed under the Act, 1994, on a reference made to the Ombudsman under Sec. 271J of the said Act. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner is a social activist. The 3rd respondent is the former Vice Chairman of the 2nd respondent Municipality. While in office, 3rd respondent constructed/maintained private pathway/road exclusively leading to his house by using public funds by misrepresenting the road as a public road. The complaint made by the petitioner before the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau was enquired into and has arrived at conclusion in Exts.P8 to P10 that the allegation is true and further recommended to recoup the misappropriated amount from respondents 3 to 6.

(3.) Earlier, petitioner filed Ext.P2 complaint before the Ombudsman under Sec. 271 of Act, 1994, and the same was dismissed as per Ext.P3 on the ground of delay. Later, Ext.P3 was challenged in W.P.(C) No.28125 of 2009 before this Court. Meanwhile, the Government ordered Vigilance enquiry. As per Ext.P7 judgment, this Court clarified that Ext.P3 will not stand in the way of proceedings, if any, that may be recommended following the vigilance enquiry, either for prosecution or for recouping any loss sustained by the local authority. Exts.P8 to P10 report of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau was accepted by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P11. Later, as per Ext.P13, 1st respondent requested the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, i.e., the 7th respondent to initiate steps for recovery of amount. However, as per Ext.P14, the entire proceedings were closed by the 7th respondent, citing delay. It is thus challenging Ext.P14, this writ petition is filed.