Manjula Chellur,CJ
2nd Respondent before learned Single Judge is before us challenging the judgment dated 20.02.2013. The brief facts that led to filing of present appeal are as under:-
2. Appellant herein approached 1st respondent with a complaint that respondent Panchayat had failed in making payment of an amount of `1,03,055/- (Rupees One lakh three thousand and fifty five only), according to them, is the cost of materials supplied by them on the basis of orders placed by the Panchayat in respect of installation of two lift irrigation projects. According to them, when Panchayat failed to make payments in spite of repeated demands made, they approached the Ombudsman seeking directions for payment of the amounts due. Serious contentions were raised before 1st respondent by writ petitioner-Panchayat and after hearing both the parties Ext.P7 order came to be passed by 1st respondent-Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions.
3. Aggrieved by the same, Panchayat filed writ petition challenging the order of Ombudsman wherein a serious contention was raised by the Panchayat that no contract existed between Panchayat and alleged supplier and they have categorically denied their responsibility or liability. Several correspondence between parties became the subject matter for consideration before Ombudsman. Ultimately, Section 271-F of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act has to be looked into in order to understand whether contentions raised by the claimant can be treated as complaint, touching corruption or mal-administration of the institution.
4. Learned Single Judge, after referring to Section 271-F and the meaning of complaints or allegations, was of the opinion the question involved is purely a matter of positive assertion on the part of the claimant that they had supplied materials to panchayat which is categorically denied by the writ petitioner- Panchayat. Therefore, learned Single Judge was justified in saying, there was no issue, which requires to be adjudicated, pertaining to any question of corruption or maladministration. It is purely a claim for money, in other words, liability against respondent-Panchayat in question.
5. The entire issue is whether such materials were supplied by the claimant at the instance of the Panchayat or not, which is purely a question of fact. Therefore, learned Single Judge was justified in saying Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim for payment of money, in the light of decision of this Court in John A., Ansons Group, Architects V. Changanacherry Muncipality and another (2011 KHC 800).
We find no good reason to interfere with the said opinion of learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
sj 27/05