IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 34265 OF 2014 PETITIONER:

THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT AGED 55 YEARS DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENTS:

1 C.M. JOSEPH S/O. T.K. MATHAI, AGED 62 YEARS, RETIRED SECRETARY, KOOVAPADI BLOCK PANCHAYATH, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT THAZHATHUNDIL, THODARAMPARAMB, KOOVAPADI P.O., PIN- 683

544.

2 KOOVAPADI BLOCK PANCHAYATH, KOOVAPADY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PIN- 686544.

ADDL.3 SMT.MARIAMMA JOSEPH(WIFE), THAZHETHUNDIL HOUSE, THODAPARAMBU, KOOVAPADI PO -683544 ADDL.4 RENJITH JOSEPH(SON), THAZHETHUNDIL HOUSE, THODAPARAMBU, KOOVAPADI PO -683544 ADDL.5 RENJINI SARA JOSEPH(DAUGHTER), THAZHETHUNDIL HOUSE, THODAPARAMBU, KOOVAPADI PO -683544 ADDL.6 RAJESH GEORGE JOSEPH(SON), THAZHETHUNDIL HOUSE, THODAPARAMBU, KOOVAPADI PO -683544 ADDITIONAL REPONDENTS R3 TO R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.03.2024 IN I.A.NO.1/2022 IN WP(C)NO.34265/2014 BY ADVS.

P.K.RAVISANKAR P.K.RAVI SANKAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

W.P.(C).No.34265 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 7th day of March, 2024

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed by the District Judge, Ernakulam in a petition filed under Section 16(3) of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994 by the 1^st respondent. The prayer in the petition was against the surcharge certificate issued by the Director of Local Fund dated 21.12.2001. The 1^st respondent had worked as Block Development Officer, Koovappady from 12.10.2004 till 30.04.2006. During that period, he functioned as Secretary of the Koovappady Block Panchayat. The surcharge certificate was issued for realisation of Rs.1,40,749- from the 1^st respondent finding that he caused loss of such an amount to the said Block Panchayat by making over payment in relation to a contract work. The 1^st respondent contends that the said surcharge certificate is invalid since it was issued beyond the period of limitation. It is further contended that the final bill for payment was passed not by the 1^st respondent but by another person and the 1^st respondent only had signed the payment order. This did not involve recalculation of the bill, which was already passed is the submission. In fact when the final bill was prepared and signed by the then Secretary Sri.Thankapan, the 1^st respondent was under suspension is the contention. Rs.70,000/- due to the contractor was retained as security. But, the same was released subsequently without adjusting against the excess payment is the further submission. In the said circumstances, it is submitted that the 1^st respondent cannot be mulcted with the liability and the surcharge certificate is illegal. Hence, the petition was filed before the District Judge, Ernakulam.

2. Before the Trial Court, no oral evidence was let in.

Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B7 were marked. The Trial Court, after considering the contentions of the 1^st respondent, found that the 1^st respondent is responsible for the loss. But, the District Judge allowed the petition mainly on the ground of delay. Consequently, the petition was allowed.

Hence, this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader.

4. The short point raised by the learned Government Pleader is that the reason for allowing the petition filed under Section 16(3) of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994 is unsustainable in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in State of Kerala and another vs.

P.D.Raveendran and another (2020 (4) KHC 201) 5. After hearing the learned Government Pleader, I think there is some force in the argument. This Court considered the question of delay in P.D.Raveendran case (supra) in detail. It will be bene