IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

FRIDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 10515 OF 2018 PETITIONER:

U.K.ASSAINAR AGED 64 YEARS S/O.ABDURAHMAN, RESIDING AT "CHERIYA KURUNGOT", SIVAPURAM AMSOM, DESOM, IYYAD P.O.,UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673574.

BY ADVS.

SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SMT.SEEMA RESPONDENTS:

1 DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

2 THE SECRETARY NOCHAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHENOLI P.O., KOZHIKODE-673525.

BY ADVS.

SRI. BINOY DAVIS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.V.ANOOP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT The petitioner was visited with a surcharge certificate amount to Rs.1,24,389/- (Rupees One lakh twenty four thousand three hundred and eighty nine only) issued by the first respondent on 27.09.2014. The said certificate was challenged before the District Court, Kozhikode in O.P.No.1 of 2015 and it entered in dismissal. The first respondent had conducted an audit of accounts of Nochad Grama Panchayath for the year 2007-2008 and issued an audit report to the second respondent on 30.03.2010. In the audit report various payments were objected. It was alleged that Nochad Grama Panchayath had lost an amount of Rs.1,24,389/- (Rupees One lakh twenty four thousand three hundred and eighty nine only) on account of the illegal estimate made by the petitioner and hence directed the amount to be recovered.

2. According to the petitioner the work was sanctioned for formation of a road of 1.1 Kilometer length from Muniyangad to Mayancherry Kovil Road through the land surrendered by the local beneficiaries. The work to be undertaken by the petitioner in the estimate was prepared by the petitioner, as per the Standard Data Book, 1965 issued by the Chief Engineer PWD (Buildings and Roads). It is also contended that the said estimate was approved as evident from Ext.P7. Notwithstanding these facts, by Ext.P1 dated 21.10.2013 the first respondent issued a surcharge notice to the petitioner. By Ext.P2 the petitioner had submitted his objection. It is notwithstanding the contention raised in the said objection that the first respondent proceeded to issue the surcharge certificate on 27.09.2014 as evident from Ext.P3. The said surcharge certificate was subject matter of challenge in terms of Section 16(3) of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994 before the District Court, Kozhikode. By Ext.P6 order, the District Court, Kozhikode dismissed the Original Petition. Thereafter, the proceedings for revenue recovery was initiated against the petitioner which prompted the petitioner to approach this Court.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent contending among others that the surcharge certificate was issued after due notice to the petitioner and therefore the same does not call for interference in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that the Original Petition was rightly dismissed by the District Court and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable.

4. I have heard Sri.Parthasarathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Binoy Davis, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. The prime contention raised by the petitioner is with regard to the approval of the estimate by the technical committee. Ext.P7 is the approved estimate which is produced before this Court. The perusal of Ext.P7 shows, that the Assistant Executive Engineer of District Rural Development Agency as well as the Assistant Engineer of the Local Self Government Department had approved the same. It is based on the said estimate that the petitioner had undertaken the work. Had the estimate be not in terms of the PWD manual, the technical committee would not have approved the estimate. In short, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither the first res