JUDGMENT : The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P8 order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions (for short, 'the Ombudsman') prohibiting the petitioner from using the building in Re-Sy.No.103/5 in Valavannoor Village as auditorium. 2. According to the petitioner, he constructed a commercial building in 23.673 Ares of land owned by him in the aforesaid survey number for starting furniture business on the basis of Ext.P1 building permit issued by the 2nd respondent, the Secretary (hereinafter referred to as 'Secretary') of the 1st respondent Grama Panchayat ('Panchayat', for short). Upon completion of the construction, the building was assigned with number and occupancy certificate was issued by the Secretary. 3. The petitioner states that when he sustained loss in the furniture business, he decided to start a mini auditorium in the said building and since the plinth area was not sufficient to house the auditorium, he constructed one more floor on the existing building and submitted application for regularisation of that floor. However, finding that the construction is unauthorised and the occupancy of the building was changed without permission, the Secretary passed Ext.P2 order under Section 235W(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KPR Act', for short) cancelling the building number and occupancy certificate and directed the petitioner to demolish the entire building. 4. The petitioner challenged Ext.P2 order before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions ('the Tribunal', for short) constituted under Section 271S of the KPR Act invoking the provisions under Section 276 (4) of the said Act. The Tribunal passed Ext.P3 order staying Ext.P2 till the disposal of the appeal. 5. While so, the 5th respondent submitted a complaint before the District Collector against the functioning of auditorium and the same was made over to the Secretary of the Panchayat who issued Ext.P4 notice cum provisional order directing the petitioner to stop the functions in the auditorium till the disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply to Ext.P4 stating that the construction of the building is liable to be regularised. The Secretary issued Ext.P6 communication directing the petitioner to submit application for regularisation of the building. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application for regularisation which is yet to be disposed of. 6. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply to Ext.P4 stating that the construction of the building is liable to be regularised. The Secretary issued Ext.P6 communication directing the petitioner to submit application for regularisation of the building. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application for regularisation which is yet to be disposed of. 6. The 5th respondent also approached the Ombudsman with a complaint alleging that the petitioner is using a building of commercial occupancy as auditorium and is carrying out unauthorised construction in that building. The Ombudsman passed Ext.P8 order prohibiting the petitioner from using the building as auditorium. The Ombudsman observed that, the dispute pending before the Tribunal is regarding unauthorised construction of building, whereas the allegation in the complaint is regarding the use of building with commercial occupancy as auditorium and ordered that till the construction is regularised in accordance with law, the building cannot be used as auditorium. 7. The petitioner filed Ext.P9 review petition before the Ombudsman contending, inter alia, that Ext.P8 order is issued without hearing him. However, the Ombudsman did not consider the review petition. The petitioner has, accordingly, filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P8 contending that the same is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the Ombudsman ought not have passed the order during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal and the application for regularisation before the Panchayat. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 application to regularise the construction of auditorium. 8. This Court, while admitting the writ petition to the file, passed an interim order staying the operation of Ext.P8 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent contending that the property in which the building is situated is waqf property and that the building permit was obtained by the petitioner by fraud and misrepresentation. It is further contended that the building is situated in a very thickly populated area and the road in front of the building is narrow and there are two Juma mosques, auditorium and several buildings nearby and there is no space for car parking and no consent is obtained from the Pollution Control Board for the functioning of the auditorium. 10. 10. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 wherein it is stated that the first floor of the building was constructed without permission from the Panchayat and that the Panchayat has initiated proceedings under Section 235 W of the KPR Act, which was stayed by the Tribunal and that the petitioner has filed Ext.P7 application for regularisation after curing the defects and due to the pendency of the proceedings before the Ombudsman, the Panchayat has not taken any decision thereon. It is also stated that, pursuant to the complaint made by the 5th respondent before the District Collector against the use of auditorium, the District Collector orally directed the Panchayat to take action and accordingly, the Secretary has issued Ext.P4 order to stop all activities in the auditorium. It is further stated that since the building is not regularised, the same cannot be used by the petitioner. 11. During the pendency of this writ petition, and while the order of stay of Ext.P8 was in force, the Ombudsman passed Ext.P11 order restraining the functioning of the auditorium till the construction is regularised and occupancy certificate is obtained. Pursuant to Ext.P11, the Secretary has issued Ext.P12 order directing the petitioner to stop the functioning of the auditorium until further orders from the Ombudsman. 12. The petitioner has produced Ext.P13, the copy of the ‘consent to operate’ issued by the Pollution Control Board for the functioning of the auditorium and also Ext.P14 order of the District Town Planner approving the application submitted by the petitioner for regularisation of the construction on certain conditions. The petitioner submits that he has complied with all the conditions therein. 13. Heard Sri. T.Sethumadhavan, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sujai Sathian for the petitioner, Sri. C.M.Mohammed Iquabal for respondents 1 and 2, the learned Government Pleader for the 4th respondent and Sri. K.Mohammed Faisal Naha for the 5th respondent. 14. Sri. Sethumadhavan, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that, Ext.P8 order is passed by the Ombudsman without jurisdiction. T.Sethumadhavan, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sujai Sathian for the petitioner, Sri. C.M.Mohammed Iquabal for respondents 1 and 2, the learned Government Pleader for the 4th respondent and Sri. K.Mohammed Faisal Naha for the 5th respondent. 14. Sri. Sethumadhavan, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that, Ext.P8 order is passed by the Ombudsman without jurisdiction. According to the senior counsel, when the Ombudsman passed Ext.P8 order, the question regarding the legality of the proceedings initiated by the Secretary against the construction was pending before the Tribunal and in terms of the interdiction under sub-section (4) (b) of Section 271 M of the KPR Act, the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to enquire into the complaint of the 5th respondent stands ousted. The learned senior counsel submits that, the 5th respondent got impleaded in the appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has later disposed of the appeal by order dated 30.11.2018 confirming Ext.P2 order under Section 235 W(3) of the KPR Act, but directing the Secretary of the Panchayat not to implement Ext.P2 order till the disposal of the application for regularisation submitted by the petitioner. A copy of the order of the Tribunal in Appeal No. 664/2015 was handed over to the Court by the senior counsel for the petitioner for perusal and the same shall form part of the Judges paper. It is submitted by the senior counsel that, in view of Ext.P8 order passed by the Ombudsman, the Panchayat is not considering Ext.P7 application for regularisation. The learned senior counsel further submits that, when the operation of Ext.P8 is stayed by this Court, there is no legal inhibition for respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P7 application. The learned senior counsel points out that, the District Town Planner has approved the application of the petitioner for regularisation on certain conditions and the petitioner has fulfilled all those conditions and the Pollution Control Board has granted consent to operate the auditorium and that there is no justification for the Ombudsman to interdict the petitioner from functioning the auditorium. The learned senior counsel also points out that, when this Court has stayed the operation of Ext.P8 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, the learned Ombudsman ought not have issued Ext.P11 order directing the petitioner to stop the functioning of the auditorium. The learned senior counsel also points out that, when this Court has stayed the operation of Ext.P8 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, the learned Ombudsman ought not have issued Ext.P11 order directing the petitioner to stop the functioning of the auditorium. The learned senior counsel also submits that, the 5th respondent is not residing near the auditorium and the complaint before the Ombudsman has been made without bona fides and on oblique reasons. 15. Per contra, Sri.Faisal would contend that the property where the auditorium is constructed is a waqf land and the building permit was obtained by the petitioner by fraud and misrepresentation. Sri.Faisal would also contend that the construction made by the petitioner cannot be regularised as the same is constructed in breach of all licensing provisions. With regard to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to pass Exts.P8 and P11 orders, Sri.Faisal would rely on the decision of this Court in Reghuvara Panicker v. Maranalloor Grama Panchayat [ 2009 (4) KHC 170 : 2010 (1) KLT SN 26] wherein it was held that, unless it is shown that the Ombudsman has clearly traversed beyond its jurisdiction, the Court shall not interfere with its proceedings except in cases where clear injustice is demonstrated. 16. Sri.Mohammed Iquabal, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would contend that the petitioner has cured all defects pointed out by them and has purchased additional land and Ext.P7 application for regularisaiton is not considered only due to Ext.P8 order and the pendency of the matter before the Ombudsman. 17. The Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions has been constituted under Chapter XXV B of the KPR Act for Local Self Government Institutions (LSGIs) at the State level for conducting investigations and enquiries in respect of any action involving corruption or maladministration or irregularities in the discharge of administrative functions by LSGIs or by an employee or an officer working in any office or institution transferred to such LSGIs or by elected member of the LSGI including its president or chairperson and for the disposal of such complaints in accordance with the provisions of the KPR Act. Section 271F (1) (b) of the KPR Act defines 'allegation' and 271F (1) (c) defines 'complaint' and 271F (1) (g) defines 'public servant'. Section 271J deals with the functions of the Ombudsman and 271K deals with the powers of the Ombudsman. Section 271F (1) (b) of the KPR Act defines 'allegation' and 271F (1) (c) defines 'complaint' and 271F (1) (g) defines 'public servant'. Section 271J deals with the functions of the Ombudsman and 271K deals with the powers of the Ombudsman. Section 271M deals with 'investigation' into complaints. Having regard to the object and scheme of the provisions under Chapter XXV B of the KPR Act, the Ombudsman is constituted to enquire or investigate into allegations contained in complaints of corruption or maladministration or irregularities in the discharge of administrative functions by employees or elected members of the LSGIs. 18. The complaint filed by the 5th respondent before the Ombudsman is not produced by either side. Section 271F (1) (c) defines 'complaint' to mean a statement of allegation that a public servant or a Local Self Government Institution is guilty of corruption or maladministration. Since the complaint filed by the 5th respondent is not before this Court, it is not clear as to whether there is any allegation that respondents 1 and 2 are guilty of corruption or maladministration for the Ombudsman to entertain the complaint. However, it can be seen from Ext.P8 order that the allegation in the complaint is regarding the use of building with commercial occupancy as an auditorium. Ext. P11 order recites that the allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner is constructing auditorium in violation of the rules. In either case, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the unauthorised construction as well as unauthorised change of occupancy was the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal. In Ext. P2 issued under Section 235W(3), the foremost breach pointed out by the Secretary was regarding the illegal change of occupancy group, ie., from group 'F' to group 'D', which violates Rule 4(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Building Rules'). Rule 34 deals with occupancy of buildings and as per the classification of buildings under Rule 34 (2), an auditorium comes under Group 'D' Assembly occupancy. Rule 4(3) provides that, no person shall change the occupancy of an existing building from one group to another, without first obtaining the permit from the Secretary. Ext. P2 was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has stayed the said order. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Ombudsman passed Ext. Rule 4(3) provides that, no person shall change the occupancy of an existing building from one group to another, without first obtaining the permit from the Secretary. Ext. P2 was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has stayed the said order. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Ombudsman passed Ext. P8 order. Section 271M (4) (b) of the KPR Act interdicts the Ombudsman from enquiring into any matter in respect of which a remedy is available from the Tribunal. Section 271M deals with the power of the Ombudsman to conduct enquiry into complaints filed before it under the KPR Act and reads as follows: 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 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. (emphasis supplied) Thus, Section 271M (4) (b) interdicts the Ombudsman from enquiring into matters in respect of which a remedy is available from the Tribunal. (emphasis supplied) Thus, Section 271M (4) (b) interdicts the Ombudsman from enquiring into matters in respect of which a remedy is available from the Tribunal. The interdiction is for the purpose that the matter in issue before the Tribunal and the Ombudsman shall not be the same, leading to conflicting decisions. 19. Here, it will be apposite to refer to Section 271S of the KPR Act which deals with constitution of Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and it reads thus:- “271S. Constitution of Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions.-(1)The Government shall constitute a Tribunal for every district or for more than one district, to consider and dispose of the appeal or revision filed against the decisions of the Local Self Government Institutions under section 276 of this Act and Section 509 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.” (emphasis supplied) 20. Section 276 of the KPR Act deals with appeal and revision and sub-sections (1), (4) & (5) thereof are extracted hereunder:- “276. Appeal and Revision. -(1) An appeal shall lie to the panchayat against the notice issued or order passed or action taken by the President or Secretary in exercise of the powers conferred as per the provisions of this Act, rules, bye-laws or regulations made thereunder except sections 235 I, 235 J, 235 N, 235 W and 235 X: x x x x x x (4) An appeal on the notice, order or action of the Secretary under sections 235 I, 235 J, 235 N, 235 W and 235 X shall be filed before the Tribunal Constituted for Local Self Government Institutions under section 271 S, and it may on an application by an order, stay the operation of the said notice, order or action taken pending disposal of the appeal. (5) An appeal on any notice issued, order passed, or action taken by the Panchayat or a revision on a decision taken by the Panchayat or Standing Committee on any appeal shall lie to the Tribunal Constituted under Section 271 S, provided that such appeal or revision shall be confined only on the following subjects and relating to other subjects as may be prescribed for the purpose, namely: - (a) assessment, demand and collection of taxes or fees or cess; (b) grant of permission and licences for trades, factories, markets and other establishments. (emphasis supplied) The remedy available before the Tribunal is appellate or revisional. (emphasis supplied) The remedy available before the Tribunal is appellate or revisional. An appellate remedy is provided on the notice, order or action of the Secretary under sections 235 I, 235 J, 235 N, 235 W and 235 X. An appellate or revisional remedy is also provided on any notice issued, order passed, or action taken by the panchayat committee or a revision on a decision taken by the panchayat committee or standing committee on any appeal on specified subjects. The matters that constitute cause for filing appeal or revision before the Tribunal have been specified in the schedule to the Tribunal For Local Self Government Institutions Rules, 1999. 21. Rule 151 of the Building Rules reads as under:- “151. Appeal.-(1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Secretary may submit an appeal to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions constituted under section 271 S of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in the Act, an appeal may be filed against any order.- (i) approving or disapproving building site; (ii) granting or refusing permit to execute work; (iii) confirming, modifying or cancelling the notice requiring alteration of work; (iv) confirming the provisional order requiring demolition of building or part thereof or filling up of well; (v) regularizing construction or reconstruction or alteration of building or digging of well or rejecting such regularisation; and (vi) stopping erection of building or execution of work; (vii) passed or action taken by the Secretary under these rules; (viii) passed by the Chief Town Planner or District Town Planner.(emphasis supplied) 22. An order under Section 235W (3) of the KPR Act may be passed in cases where construction has been commenced without obtaining permit, violation of permit conditions or approved plan, contravention of Building Rules etc. In such cases, the person against whom an order under Section 235W (3) is passed has a remedy of appeal before the Tribunal. He cannot approach the Ombudsman challenging such order, as a remedy is available from the Tribunal. Once he invokes that remedy before the Tribunal, the Ombudsman shall not enquire into matters in respect of which the remedy has been invoked. If the interdiction is not made applicable to matters in respect of which the remedy before the Tribunal has been invoked, the purpose for which the interdiction is provided in the KPR Act will get defeated. Once he invokes that remedy before the Tribunal, the Ombudsman shall not enquire into matters in respect of which the remedy has been invoked. If the interdiction is not made applicable to matters in respect of which the remedy before the Tribunal has been invoked, the purpose for which the interdiction is provided in the KPR Act will get defeated. It may lead to conflicting decisions by the Tribunal and the Ombudsman on identical issues. Here, the complaint before the Ombudsman is not by the petitioner who has invoked the remedy before the Tribunal; but by the 5th respondent, who is not a person aggrieved by any order passed by the Secretary though he got impleaded as additional respondent in the appeal before the Tribunal. The 5th respondent cannot invoke the appellate or revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal as he is not a person aggrieved by any notice, order or proceedings of the Secretary, the Panchayat or the Standing Committee. If any remedy is available to the 5th respondent from the Tribunal, the interdiction under Section 271M (4) (b) comes into operation and the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman in the matter gets ousted. No remedy, appellate or revisional, is available for the 5th respondent before the Tribunal. That does not entitle him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman against any unauthorised construction or unauthorised occupancy or other matters specified in the schedule to the Tribunal For Local Self Government Institutions Rules, 1999. The interdiction is not for preferring the complaint, but for the Ombudsman to enquire into the complaint. The intention of the Legislature is to prevent two different forums under the KPR Act deciding identical issues, thereby leading to conflicting decisions. It is for the Tribunal to consider the matters specified in the schedule to the Tribunal For Local Self Government Institutions Rules, 1999 and the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to enquire into these matters stands ousted by Section 271M (4) (b). 23. In Fr.Laberin Yesu v. K.Biju and Others [ 2020 (5) KHC 552 : 2020 (6) KLT 329 ], this Court considered the question whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to examine the sustainability or otherwise of building permit. 23. In Fr.Laberin Yesu v. K.Biju and Others [ 2020 (5) KHC 552 : 2020 (6) KLT 329 ], this Court considered the question whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to examine the sustainability or otherwise of building permit. This Court held that the Ombudsman is interdicted from enquiring into any matter in respect of which remedy is available to the complainant from Tribunal and that the Ombudsman has to function in accordance with the statute and 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 not expected to enquire into such complaint, ignoring the statutory bar. This Court noted that the intention of the Legislature is to prevent multiple forums deciding identical questions leading to conflicting decisions. 24. In Fr.Laberin Yesu, this Court was considering a case where the complainant before the Ombudsman was having a remedy before the Tribunal. In the case on hand, the complainant before the Ombudsman is not having a remedy before the Tribunal. 25. In the light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the view that the interdiction, under Section 271M (4) (b) of the KPR Act for the Ombudsman to enquire into complaint filed before it, will apply where an appeal or revision is pending before the Tribunal under Section 276 (4) or (5) of the KPR Act. The Ombudsman shall not enquire into matters which are seized of by the Tribunal. The power of the Ombudsman is confined to deal with corruption or maladministration or irregularity of public servants, viz; employees of LSGIs or their elected members. The Ombudsman is not expected to traverse beyond the said powers conferred by the KPR Act. The Ombudsman shall not enquire into matters which are seized of by the Tribunal. The power of the Ombudsman is confined to deal with corruption or maladministration or irregularity of public servants, viz; employees of LSGIs or their elected members. The Ombudsman is not expected to traverse beyond the said powers conferred by the KPR Act. This Court, in Jyothi T.P. v. Retnakaran and Others [ 2019 (1) KHC 459 ], held that the power of the Ombudsman is confined to deal with any irregularity, corruption, maladministration etc., or to investigate into any allegation contained in a complaint or on a reference from the Government or which has come to the notice of the Ombudsman and that, when the empowerment under law is specific and clear, the authority is not expected to traverse beyond the same, assuming power from general law of the land and adjudicate issues, especially due to the fact that parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court to ventilate their grievances. 26. In Reghuvara Panicker (supra), cited by Sri.Faisal, this Court held that, unless it is shown that the Ombudsman has clearly traversed beyond its jurisdiction, Court shall not interfere with its proceedings except in cases where clear injustice is demonstrated. This is a case where the Ombudsman lacks jurisdiction to enquire into the complaint filed before it and not a case of traversing beyond its jurisdiction. Therefore, the decision in Reghuvara Panicker (supra) will not support the case of the 5th respondent. 27. In the light of the above legal position, it is declared that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to pass Exts.P8 and P11 orders. Accordingly, Exts.P8 and P11 orders are set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P7 application of the petitioner for regularisation, in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the 5th respondent has a case that the property where the building is constructed is a waqf or waqf property, such dispute has to be determined by the appropriate forum. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.