P.R. Raman, Ag. C.J.

Appellant is the petitioner in O.P.No.31184 of 2001. During the relevant time, he was the Secretary of Kannur Municipality. A show cause notice was issued by the Local Fund Audit Department under Section 9(2) of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994, produced as Ext.P4 in the original petition, to show cause as to why steps for prosecution shall not be initiated for non submission of accounts in terms of Section 9(2) of the said Act. Petitioner challenged the said notice on various grounds.

2. In the writ petition, he, inter alia, challenged the very provision contained in Section 9 (2) of the Local Fund Audit Act and also contended that in the light of the subsequent enactment, namely the provisions contained in Sections 294 and 295 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, Section 9(2) of the Local Fund Audit Act should be deemed to have been repealed. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions and repelled the challenge against Section 9 (2) of the Local Fund Audit Act. It is also held that the provisions of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act in so far as they relates to the Municipalities do not stand repealed impliedly or otherwise by reason of Sections 294 and 295 of the Municipality Act. It was further held that the Secretary of the Municipality is the executive officer as contemplated under Section 9(2) of the Act and it is he who can be arrayed as accused for prosecution but in case the duties of the Secretary have been duly delegated to some other officer, then the Director of Local Fund Audit has to look into those aspects. In that view, a further opportunity was given to the appellant/petitioner to file an explanation to the show cause notice and the Deputy Director or the Director, as the case may be, was directed to consider the objection and see whether he is satisfied that a criminal prosecution under Section 9(2) of the Local Fund Audit Act is to be launched or not.

3. Not satisfied with the relief as granted above and in view of the repelling of the contentions raised against Section 9(2) of the Local Fund Audit Act, the appellant has preferred this writ appeal.

4. We have heard learned senior counsel Sri.P.Ravindran appearing on behalf of the appellant and Smt.K.Meera, learned senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994 and by virtue of Section 9(2), the local authorities are liable to prepare and present accounts for audit. The local authorities include the Municipality also. But, subsequently in terms of the provisions contained in Article 243Z of the Constitution of India which provides that the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provisions with respect to the maintenance of accounts by the Municipalities and the auditing of such accounts. Sections 294 and 295 of the Municipality Act were inserted and notified with effect from 14.12.1995. It is his contention that by virtue of those provisions contained in Sections 294 and 295 of the Municipality Act, the provisions contained in the Local Fund Audit Act, more particularly Section 9(2), should have been held as impliedly repealed. According to him, since specific provisions have been inserted in the Municipality Act by way of Sections 294 and 295, it is a self contained Code. He also contended that Rule 11 of the Kerala Municipality (Manner of Inspection and Audit System) Rules, 1997 provided that the financial statement published under sub-section (1) of Section 294 shall be submitted for audit within four months after the completion of the financial year that is before the 31st day of July, to the Auditor authorised to conduct the audit of the accounts of that Municipality and sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 makes the Secretary responsible for submitting the financial statement for audit in accordance with the rules, and within the time limit as above and on default action shall be taken against the Secretary und