Writ petitions are not maintainable when effective alternative remedies exist under relevant statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 order issued in favour of the respondent.

2. The petitioner is the respondent in O.P.(LFA) 36/2015 on the file of the District Court, Alappuzha and the respondent is the petitioner in the said O.P. The above O.P(LFA) was filed by the respondent for setting aside the order of surcharge issued against the him in proceedings No.LF 8722/Spl Cell/SC3(A1)2010, dated 07.01.2015. It is averred in the writ petition that the respondent was working as Municipal Secretary at Alappuzha, during the period 2005-2006. As per the audit of accounts of the Alappuzha Municipality by the Local Fund Audit Department, the respondent had caused a loss amounting to Rs.7,41,951/- to the funds of the Alappuzha Municipality. Challenging the said proceedings, respondent has filed O.P(LFA)No.36/2015 before the District Court, Alappuzha, which was allowed setting aside Ext.P3 surcharge certificate, holding that the same is barred under Section 215 (9) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.

3. An objection was raised by the respondent regarding the maintainability of the writ petition inasmuch as an effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal before this Court is provided as per Section 295 (13) of the Kerala Municipality Act.

4. Before going into the merits of the matter, the maintainability of the present writ petition is to be considered first. The learned Government Pleader relying on the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. P.D.Raveendran and Another [2020 (4) KHC 201] would submit that this Court has held that since no period of limitation is provided in the Local Fund Audit Act for issuing a surcharge, the finding by the learned District Judge that the proceedings are barred by limitation is liable to be interfered with. Relying on the very same judgment in P.D.Raveendran's case cited Supra, especially paragraph 21 of the said judgment, the learned Government Pleader would further submit that this Court could entertain the challenge in a writ petition and need not relegate the parties to avail the alternate remedy available.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that Section 295 of the Kerala Municipality Act deals with 'Accounts and Audit' and Section 295 (11) provides appeal against the surcharge proceedings before the District Court concerned. It is invoking Section 295 (11) that proceedings were initiated by the petitioner before the District Judge, Alappuzha as evident from Ext.P6 order. Section 295 (13) provides an appeal against the decision of the District Court. A perusal of Ext.P6 order would reveal that the proceedings have been initiated before the District Judge, Alappuzha invoking the power under Section 295 (11) of the Kerala Municipality Act . A similar provision in the Panchayat Raj Act came up for consideration before this Court in Moni Achari C.V. v. Director [2012(1) KHC 207] wherein this Court held that any person aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the District Judge has a right of appeal before the High Court as provided under Section 215(13) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. A similar issue was considered in W.P.(C)No.29811 of 2008, a copy of which is produced as Ext.R1(a), wherein also the Court found that the writ petition is not maintainable and the party, if aggrieved, can file an appeal as per the Act. The said judgment was appealed against in the Director of Local Funds Audit v. V.C.Joseph [MANU/KE/ 1197/2015], wherein this Court referring to a similar provision in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act - Section 215(13), has confirmed the judgment of the learned