Recovery actions under the Revenue Recovery Act require prior surcharge proceedings as established by the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

JUDGMENT

These two writ petitions are connected and therefore I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment.

2. These writ petitions are filed by two separate persons even though the name of the petitioners are same. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25929 of 2019 was the Panchayat Secretary of Agaly Grama Panchayat for the period from 01.04.1999 till 02.06.1999. As far as the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.29493 of 2019 is concerned, he was in charge as the Secretary of Agaly Grama Panchayath from 28.06.1999 till 03.10.1999. Petitioners in these writ petitions received Ext.P1 notice dated 06.03.2019 which is produced in both these writ petitions separately intimating that during the year

1999-2000 an amount of Rs.30,761/- was spent in excess of the sanction limit of Rs.1,00,000/- in connection with the 'Peoples Planning Programme'. It is also stated in Ext.P1 that the Local Fund Accounts Committee directed recovery of the said amount in equal portion by appropriating liability among three officials including the petitioners who were working in the Panchayath during the relevant period 1999-2000. The petitioners obtained the details of the audit objection. It is the submission of the petitioners that, Exts.P3 and P4 would show that the petitioners had made expenditure during their tenure as secretary within the sanctioned limit of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also stated that in pursuance of Ext.P1 requisition, no surcharge certificate has been issued against the petitioners by the Local Fund Audit department. In such circumstances, revenue recovery is not possible, is the contention of the petitioners.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 in both these writ petitions.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated his contentions in these writ petitions. The counsel submitted that the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.29493 of 2019 retired on 31.12.2000 and the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.25929 of 2019 retired on 31.03.2011. The counsel submitted that after about 20 years the recovery steps are initiated against the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.29493 of 2019 and after about 10 years the recovery steps are initiated against the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25929 of 2019. The counsel submitted that the petitioners in these cases are not responsible for the audit objection. Serious contentions about the merit of the case was also raised. It is also submitted that no surcharge proceedings initiated.

5. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader submitted that the recovery is initiated based on the recommendations of Local Fund Accounts Committee. But the learned Government Pleader submitted that surcharge proceedings is not initiated. The Government Pleader submitted that the same is stated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C)

No.25929 of 2019.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the respondents. It is an admitted fact that no surcharge proceedings is initiated against the petitioners. If that is the case, whether the revenue recovery is possible is doubtful. This point is considered by this Court in judgment dated 01.12.2014 in W.P(C)No.7347 of 2008. It will be better to extract paragraphs 5 and

6 of that judgment:

“5. As conceded in the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Director of the Local Fund Audit Department, proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act are initiated based on the directions issued by the Local Fund Accounts Committee of the Legislative Assembly. No provision is brought to my notice conferring power on the Local Fund Accounts Committee of the Legislative Assembly to direct the Panchayat to initiate proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of the amounts in respect of which objections were raised by the auditors of the Panchayat. Merely for the reason that objections were raised in respect of the amounts expended by the