Under Section 215(9) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, all those responsible for the loss are equally liable for recovery, and recovery proceedings should be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act.

Antony Dominic, J.

Petitioner was the Secretary of the Kulakkada Grama Panchayath during the period from 21/06/1997 to 18/11/1999. Subsequently, he retired from service on 31/10/2004. Ext. P1 is a circular issued by the Government of Kerala on 05/01/1998 regulating the mining of river sand and its distribution by the local bodies. In pursuance to Ext. P1, the District Collector issued circular Ext. P2 dated 31/03/1998 which inter alia laid down the procedure to be followed for fixing the value of river sand. Clause 4 of this Circular provides that 50% of the value realised, shall be paid to the workers and that out of the balance, 25% each shall be paid to the Local Authorities and to the River Management Fund. This appropriation of the sale proceeds is in line with Clause 7 of Ext. P1 circular.

2. Despite the above provisions of Exts. P1 and P2, on 02/02/1999, the third respondent Panchayath passed Exts. P3 to P5 resolutions. For the reasons mentioned therein, the Panchayath resolved that 90% of the sale proceeds will be distributed among the workers. Audit was conducted as provided u/s 215 of the Panchayath Raj Act and in Ext. P6 audit report, which was served on the petitioner, loss on account of Ext. P3 to P5 was quantified. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation. Ext. P7 is the explanation submitted by the petitioner.

3. Thereafter, Ext. P8 surcharge certificate as provided u/s 215(a) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act was issued for the recovery of Rs. 6,16,282/- for the period 1998-1999. Subsequently, Ext. P9 erratum was issued reducing the liability to Rs. 4,43,875/-, the petitioner challenged the surcharge certificate by filing an appeal before the District Court. By Ext. P10 judgment, the District Court allowed the appeal and the matter was remitted with a direction to hear and pass fresh orders. Subsequently, the petitioner was given Ext. P13 enclosing audit reports for the period from 1997-1998 to 1999-2000. As per Ext P14, his liability was quantified at Rs. 75,98,165/-. In the meanwhile, second respondent considered the matter afresh as directed in Ext P10 judgment of the District Court and the objections raised by the petitioner were rejected.

4. Similarly, the objections raised against Ext. P14 were also rejected by Ext. P16. Ultimately, Ext. P18 liability certificate was issued indicating a liability of Rs. 88,65,287/-. Based on the above, Ext. P20 notice under Sections 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act was issued demanding Rs. 87,49,937/- and Ext. P21 is the resolution of the Kulakkada Grama Panchayath to recover the amount from the petitioner by Revenue Recovery proceedings. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed challenging Exts. P6, P8, P9, P12, P13, P14, P16, P18, P20 and P21.

5. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

6. The loss which is now sought to be recovered from the petitioner was allegedly caused on account of Exts. P3 to P5 resolutions passed by the Panchayath. According to the respondents, this resolution, is an illegal one in as much as the resolution to pay 90% of the sale proceeds to the workers was against the upper limit of 50% specified in Exts. P1 and P2. It is stated that when an illegal resolution is passed, the Secretary had the statutory duty under the proviso to Section 182(iii) to request the Panchayath to review the resolution and express his views at the time of its review and if the Panchayath upholds the decision to refer the matter to the Government. It is stated that the petitioner failed in discharging this statutory duty and therefore is liable to make good the loss suffered by the Government.

7. The proviso to Section 182(iii), which is relied on by the learned Government Pleader reads thus:

Provided that where the Secretary is of opinion that any resolutions passed by the Panchayat has not been legally passed or is in excess of the powers con