JUDGMENT : The petitioner is the complainant in Complaint No.1747 of 2014 before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions (the Ombudsman) constituted under Section 271G of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994(the Act). Respondents 1 to 7 are the respondents in the said complaint. The complaint was in respect of a building permit issued by the officials of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation (the Corporation) on 27.07.2012 to respondents 6 and 7 for reconstructing a church building, and the construction carried on by respondents 6 and 7 on the strength of the building permit. The case set out by the petitioner in the complaint is that the building permit is one issued by the officials of the Corporation flouting the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and the Aircraft Act; that the officials of the Corporation have abused their position as public servants in the matter of issuing the building permit for personal gain and that they are guilty of corruption, favouritism, nepotism and lack of integrity. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for appropriate action against the officials of the Corporation, in the complaint. The petitioner also prayed for appropriate orders for cancellation of the building permit. 2. On receipt of notice on the complaint, respondents therein appeared before the Ombudsman and raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the complaint. According to them, the subject matter of the complaint is one in which remedy is available to the complainant from the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (the Tribunal) and therefore, in the light of the interdiction under Section 271M of the Act, the complaint is not maintainable. The Ombudsman upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the complaint, in terms of Ext.P11 order. Ext.P11 order is under challenge in the writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation. 4. The essence of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the interdiction under Section 271M of the Act does not apply to a case where the complainant seeks action against the erring public servants, for the said relief cannot be granted by the Tribunal. 5. Section 271M of the Act reads thus: “271M. Investigation.-(1) The Ombudsman may, according to the provisions of this Act, enquire into any complaint filed before it under this Act. 5. Section 271M of the Act reads 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. (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 complained 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.” As evident from sub section (4) of Section 271M of the Act, the Ombudsman is interdicted from enquiring into any matter in respect of which remedy is available to the complainant from the Tribunal. The fact that an appeal is provided for against the building permit before the Tribunal under Section 509 of the Kerala Municipality Act is not disputed by the petitioner. As noted, the case of the petitioner is that the Tribunal cannot grant the relief which the petitioner seeks against the erring officials of the Corporation. 6. True, in the event of an appeal challenging the building permit, the Tribunal can examine only the question as to the sustainability or otherwise of the building permit and if it is found that the building permit is not one issued in accordance with law, it would set aside the same. 6. True, in the event of an appeal challenging the building permit, the Tribunal can examine only the question as to the sustainability or otherwise of the building permit and if it is found that the building permit is not one issued in accordance with law, it would set aside the same. The Tribunal cannot, as rightly pointed out by the petitioner, grant the relief against the officials of the Corporation claimed by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is not that the officials of the Corporation have abused their position as public servants and acted for personal gain in the matter of issuing a lawful building permit. On the other hand, his specific case is that the officials of the Corporation have abused their position as public servants for personal gain in the matter of issuing the building permit which respondents 6 and 7 are not entitled to. In other words, in a case of this nature, the sustainability or otherwise of the building permit is necessarily to be examined before considering the question as to whether the officials of the Corporation have abused their official position for personal gain. The pointed question, therefore, is as to whether the Ombudsman is empowered to examine the sustainability or otherwise of the building permit for the purpose of granting the relief claimed by the petitioner against the erring officials of the Corporation, ignoring the interdiction under sub section (4) of Section 271M of the Act. 7. Being a statutory authority, the Ombudsman has to function in accordance with the provisions of the statute. When the statute interdicts the Ombudsman from enquiring into any matter in respect of which remedy is available to the complainant from the Tribunal, the Ombudsman is certainly not expected to enquire into such complaints, ignoring the said statutory bar, for it is explicit from the provision itself that the intention of the legislature is to prevent multiple forums deciding identical questions leading to conflicting decisions. At the same time, it cannot be said that the complainant in a complaint of the instant nature would not have any remedy against the erring officials. At the same time, it cannot be said that the complainant in a complaint of the instant nature would not have any remedy against the erring officials. The Ombudsman took the view that complainants in such cases have to approach the Government and the Ombudsman can deal with their complaints, if referred to the Ombudsman by the Government under sub-section (2) of Section 271M of the Act, for in such eventualities, in the light of the non-obstante clause in sub-section (2) of Section 271M Act, the interdiction contained in sub-section (4) of Section 271M of the Act may not apply. I am not deciding the correctness of the said view of the Ombudsman, for the same does not arise for consideration in the matter. Needless to say, in the light of the statutory interdiction in sub-section (4) of Section 271M of the Act, the complainant in a case of this nature cannot approach the Ombudsman, before a successful challenge against the decision for which remedy is provided to him before the Tribunal. In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so.