logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Ker HC 1181 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Kerala
Case No : WP(C) Nos. 1466, 1472 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.M. SYAM KUMAR
Parties : Kerala State Nirmithi Kendra, Represented By Its Chief Technical Officer, Thiruvananthapuram Versus The Kerala Lok Ayukta Office Of Lokayukta, Thiruvananthapuram & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: G. Ranju Mohan, M. Santhi, A.P. Theertha Nair, Advocates. For the Respondents: R. Suraj Kumar, P.V. Anil, N.G. Varghese, Sagar Roshan, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 31-07-2026
Head Note :-
Kerala  Lok  Ayukta  Act,  1999 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 KER 58299,
Judgment :-

Soumen Sen, C.J.

1. Both these matters involve similar questions of law and fact and are, therefore, heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner is an autonomous institution registered under the Charitable Societies Registration Act by the Government of Kerala. It is engaged in the execution of various projects, which, inter alia, include the execution of civil works in the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple. Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Administrative Committee (for short, “the Committee”) entrusted certain civil works to the petitioner on a contractual basis. The Committee also entrusted two other civil works to the petitioner and with the consent of the Committee, the petitioner entrusted the execution of those works to the third respondent. The two works awarded to the third respondent by the petitioner are as follows:

                  “A)  Swadesh Darshan Scheme- Development of SPST-East Nada and North Nada at Thiruvananthapuram under Swadesh Darshan Scheme and

                  B) Swadesh Darshan Scheme- Development of SPST-Renovation and restoration of Padmatheerthakulam Bathing Ghat. ”

3. Although a substantial portion of the contract amount was paid, admittedly, certain amounts remained due and payable as funds were not released in time by the Committee. Alleging non-payment of the said amounts, a complaint was made to the Kerala Lok Ayukta by the third respondent and the Lok Ayukata adjudicated the dispute and awarded interest as during the pendency of the said matter, the principal amount was paid and accepted by the Contractor. The jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta to entertain the complaint is under challenge in this petition.

4. Without much elaboration, a plain reading of the complaints and the objections thereto would show that the dispute is purely civil in nature and that none of the issues falling within the jurisdiction of the Kerala Lok Ayukta under  the  Kerala  Lok  Ayukta  Act,  1999  arises  for consideration. It appears that the jurisdiction exercised by the Kerala Lok Ayukta is contrary to the statute, and the impugned order is ex facie without jurisdiction.

5. The learned counsel for the third respondent fairly submitted that a similar issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench presided over by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, Mr.Nitin Jamdar, in W.P.(C) No.26993 of 2021. By judgment dated 30th July 2025, the Division Bench allowed the writ petition holding that the disputes were essentially civil in nature and, therefore, could not be adjudicated by the Kerala Lok Ayukta. The Division Bench observed that various contractual issues, including the interpretation of the agreements, release of bills etc. would require evidence and adjudication. It was further held that a binding order (not recommendation) for monetary relief under a contract/agreement could not have been issued by the Kerala Lok Ayukta. Although the impugned order is in the nature of a recommendation, having  regard  to  the  scheme  of  the  Act,  such recommendation assumes a binding character if it is not implemented in accordance with law.

6. On such consideration, the writ petitions are allowed. The report of the Kerala Lok Ayukta dated 2nd July 2024 is quashed and set aside. This judgment, however, shall not prevent the parties from pursuing any civil or any other remedy available to them in accordance with law.
 
  CDJLawJournal