Dated this the 10 th day of January, 2024 The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. During a certain period, he was empanelled as a lawyer for conducting cases on behalf of the Kerala State Housing Board. The Kerala State Housing Board suffered an adverse order in O.P.No.206 of 2003 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur (Ext.P1). The Board filed an appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, as Appeal No.152 of 2006. The said appeal was originally filed through another lawyer and was later entrusted to the petitioner for its conduct.

2. According to the petitioner, owing to a mistake in noting the posting date of the case, the petitioner failed to appear on 15.05.2007, on which date, by Ext.P2 order, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the appeal for non-

prosecution. Though the petitioner filed Ext.P3 application for restoration of the appeal, the same was also dismissed by Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 was challenged before the National Commission, which also upheld Ext.P4 order. The petitioner has now been served with Ext.P10 notice under the Kerala Public Accountants Act, 1963, proposing to recover from the petitioner the amount which had to be paid by the Board, in terms of Ext.P1 order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.

3. Sri.P.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that a perusal of Ext.P1 order will indicate that the Board had suffered the order on account of the fact that the Board had failed to adduce any evidence before the District Forum and had also failed to cross-examine the witnesses, who gave evidence in favour of the complainant. It is submitted that the petitioner had failed to appear before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, only on account of the fact that the date of posting of the case was wrongly noted. It is submitted that though the Housing Board came to know of the dismissal of the appeal, they actually brought it to the notice of the petitioner, only several months after it came to their notice. It is submitted that it is in such circumstances that there was delay in filing the application for restoration leading to Ext.P4 order. It is submitted that the Kerala State Housing Board had also approached the Bar Council, with a complaint against the petitioner and no action was deemed necessary by the Bar Council in the matter. It is submitted that though the Board had informed the Bar Council that they intend to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of money by filing a suit, no suit was filed against the petitioner.

It is submitted that this writ petition is liable to be allowed on the short ground that, the Kerala State Housing Board was not a notified institution for the purposes of the Kerala Public Accountants Act, 1963, in terms of the provisions contained under Section 2(b) of the said Act. It is submitted that the Kerala State Housing Board has been notified only w.e.f 26.12.2013. Reference is made in this regard to SRO No.49 of 2014 published on 22.01.2014, which indicates that the Housing Board was notified as an institution to which the provisions of the Kerala Public Accountants Act, 1963 will apply only w.e.f.

26.12.2013.

4. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Housing Board.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Housing Board states that, on account of the negligence of the petitioner, the Board was forced to pay the amount determined in terms of Ext.P1.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Housing Board, I am of the view that, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Ext.P10 notice issued to the