The Parliamentary Commissioner Act was authorized to deal with matters of mal-administration. But the Act failed even to provide a definition for the term mal-administration. It has also been said under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act of 1967 that the complaints have to be made through a Member of the Parliament. In most of the cases, the Member of Parliament himself tries to solve the dispute and does not send it to the Parliamentary Commissioner. This restriction is illogical and it cannot be seen to it that that the grievances of the citizens would be served without bias in such circumstances. The trust and confidence of the people cannot be gained when there is such a limitation in any legislation. “It is sometimes further argued that if the PCA appears too demanding and, a fortiori, if he were afforded coercive powers, he might exacerbate the very problems he is expected to solve. Administrators may be reluctant to take bold decisions for fear of the consequences; ‘defensive administration’ might be undertaken: time-wasting procedures designed not to further administrative efficiency but to deflect criticism.” (Fenwick & Philipson 2003, p. 240).
According to this Act, the Ombudsman looks into complaints in which that information illegally suspended by the government authorities, but no lawful solution has been offered to them in the cases of breach of the Code by the authorities. This Act has not given much wider powers to the Ombudsman when compared to other nations but it has been argued that the act implied gives various powers. “Under s 5(1) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act of 1967, the Ombudsman can take up a complaint only if the citizen has suffered injustice as a result of maladministration; both maladministration and injustice must be shown and there must be a casual link between them.” (Fenwick 2002,