JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order passed by the Court of the District Judge, Thodupuzha in OP(LF) No.10/2009, the petitioner before the Court below, has filed the original petition. The respondents in the original petition are the respondents before the court below.

2. The petitioner's case is that, he had filed the above original petition under Section 16(3) of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act and Section 215 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, to set aside the surcharge certificate dated 02.05.2009 issued against him by the 1st respondent. The petitioner is a retired Panchayath Secretary. While he was working as the Secretary of the Peerumedu Grama Panchayath, the Local Fund Audit authorities conducted a periodical audit in the Panchayath office and detected certain irregularities with respect to collecting the rent of a shopping complex and drinking water supply scheme. The respondents fixed the petitioner's liability at Rs.6,600/-. As per the audit report, the petitioner remitted an excess amount of Rs.6,600/- to one Binu K. Mathew. Immediately on receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed the original petition and contended that the respondents have not followed the procedure as contemplated under Rule 20 of the Audit Rules and they have not issued the surcharge certificate within four months from the date of issuance of the surcharge notice as provided under the Local Fund Audit Rules. Moreover, the surcharge certificate is time barred in view of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, as it is issued beyond four years after the alleged loss to the Panchayath. The respondents contested the original petition by filing Ext.P4 written objection. The court below, by the impugned Ext.P5 order, dismissed the original petition.

Ext.P5 is illegal and unsustainable in law.

3. Heard; Sri.Dileep S.Kallar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. The principal ground of challenge is that the surcharge certificate was time barred under Section 215 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994, as it was issued four years after the alleged loss.

5. The above question is no longer res-integra in view of the categoric declaration of law by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala vs. Raveendran [2020 (5) KLT 371], wherein it is held that the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994 is a special enactment covering all local bodies and the same would prevail over the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994, and there is no period of limitation provided under the former Act.

In the light of the above declaration of law, I do not find any error in Ext.P5 order passed by the court below, warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The original petition fails and is hence dismissed.