JUDGMENT : 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 he 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. 4. The 4th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, justifying the stand adopted by the Ombudsman and also denying the allegation raised against the 4th respondent. 5. The 3rd respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations made against the 3rd respondent and also justifying the stand adopted by the Ombudsman that the action is a belated one. 6. The 6th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit almost in similar lines with the counter affidavits filed by other party respondents. 7. 5. The 3rd respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations made against the 3rd respondent and also justifying the stand adopted by the Ombudsman that the action is a belated one. 6. The 6th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit almost in similar lines with the counter affidavits filed by other party respondents. 7. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent as well as the respective counsel appearing for the party respondents. Perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 9. The subject matter of the issue revolves around Ext.P14 order passed by the Ombudsman. On a perusal of Ext.P14, it is clear that, Ombudsman has not considered the issue on merits of the matter and as is sought for by the State Government in Ext.P13 communication dated 20.12.2014, in accordance with the power conferred under Sec.271J of Act, 1994, on the ground that the subject matter of the complaint is beyond the period of three years, as per the limitation prescribed under Sec. 271M (4) (d) of Act, 1994. Therefore, the issue to be addressed is, whether the Ombudsman was justified or legally correct in doing so. To sort out the issue, Section 271 M of Act, 1994, dealing with investigation is relevant, which read thus: “271M. Investigation.--(1) The Ombudsman may, according to the provisions of this Act, enquire into any complaint filed before it under this Act. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the Government may refer any allegation of corruption or maladministration against a Local Self Government Institution or a public servant which is within its knowledge or brought to its notice, to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman shall enquire into it as if it was a complaint filed under this Act. (3) The Ombudsman may, on receipt of a complaint, conduct an investigation in the matter and where there is prima facie case it may conduct a detailed enquiry. (3) The Ombudsman may, on receipt of a complaint, conduct an investigation in the matter and where there is prima facie case it may conduct a detailed enquiry. (4) The Ombudsman shall not enquire into matters relating to,- (a) any matter in respect of which a formal and public enquiry has been ordered by Government; (b) any matter in respect of which a remedy is available from the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions constituted under Section 271S; (c) any matter in respect of which an enquiry has been ordered under the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952 (Central Act 60 of 1952) or any matter pending before a Court; (d) any complaint filed after the expiry of three years from the date on which the matter complain against have taken place: Provided that the Ombudsman may entertain such complaint if the complainant satisfies that he had sufficient reason for not filing the complaint within the specified period.” 10. Therefore, on a reading of Sec.271M of Act, 1994, it is categoric and clear that Sec.271M deals with enquiring into any complaint filed before the Ombudsman under the provisions of Act, 1994, and so far as the period of limitation in entertaining a complaint contained under clause (d) there under, is only dealing with a complaint filed before the Ombudsman after the expiry of three years from the date on which the matter complained against have taken place, and not under any other circumstances. However, proviso thereto empowers the Ombudsman to entertain such complaints, if the complainant satisfies that he had sufficient reason for not filing the complaint within the specified period. Be it noted, reference by Government is dealt with under Sec.271J of Act, 1994, which also delineates the functions of the Ombudsman, and it read thus: “271 J. Functions of the Ombudsman.--(1) The Ombudsman shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:- (i) Investigate into any allegation contained in a complaint or on a reference from Government, or that has come to the notice of the Ombudsman; (ii) Enquire into any complaint in which corruption or maladministration of a public servant or a Local Self Government Institution is alleged; (iii)Pass an order on the allegation in the following manner, namely:- (a) Where the irregularity involves a criminal offence committed by a public servant, the matter shall be referred to the appropriate authority for investigation. (b) Where the irregularity causes loss or inconvenience to a citizen, direct the Local Self Government Institution to give him compensation and to reimburse the loss from the person responsible for the irregularity; (c) Where the irregularity involves loss or waste or misuse of the fund of the Local Self Government Institution, realise such loss from those who are responsible for such irregularity, and (d) Where the irregularity is due to omission or inaction cause to supply the omission and to rectify the mistake. (2) In addition to the functions enumerated in sub-section (1), the Ombudsman may pass interim order restraining the Local Self Government Institution from doing anything detrimental to the interest of the complainant if it is satisfied that much loss or injury will be caused to the complainant due to the alleged act. (3) The Ombudsman may by order, impose penalty in addition to compensation if it is of opinion that the irregularity involves corrupt practice for personal gain.” 11. Section 271J(1)(i) deals with investigation into any allegation contained in a complaint or on a reference from Government, or that has come to the notice of the Ombudsman. Therefore, analysing the situation by a conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 271J and 271M of Act, 1994, it is clear that the limitation prescribed under Sec.271M(4)(d) is only in entertaining a “complaint” filed after the expiry of three years from the date on which the matter complained against have taken place, which thus means, a reference made by the Government or of any allegation that has come to the notice of the Ombudsman can be entertained by the Ombudsman, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under clause (d) of Sec.271M(4) of Act, 1994. 12. In my considered view, the Ombudsman has not taken into account the powers conferred under Sec.271J so as to entertain a reference made by the Government. Therefore, I am satisfied that, Ext.P14 order passed by the Ombudsman dismissing the reference on the ground that the complaint is beyond the period of three years, cannot be sustained legally. So much so, since the power 13. Therefore, I am satisfied that, Ext.P14 order passed by the Ombudsman dismissing the reference on the ground that the complaint is beyond the period of three years, cannot be sustained legally. So much so, since the power 13. Therefore, I quash Ext.P14 and direct the 7th respondent i.e., the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, to re-consider the reference made by the Government as per Ext.P13 in accordance with law, and attain finality to the same, at the earliest possible time, after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to all interested persons. conferred under Sec.271J is specific and clear, with regard to a reference, Ombudsman is duty bound to function in accordance with the powers conferred there under. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.