IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 4269 OF 2012 PETITIONER/S:

T.V.NARAYANAN, AGED 64 YEARS S/O.KELAN, 'SOUPARNIKA', KOTTOOR, SREEKANDAPURAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADVS. P.SHEEBA P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL FUND AUDIT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3 SECRETARY MALAPPATTAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALAPPATAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670631.

4 SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALIPARAMBA TALUK.

5 VILLAGE OFFICER SREEKANDAPURAM VILLAGE, SREEKANDAPURAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

6 MALAPPATTAN GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MALAPPATTAM P.O., PIN-

670631.

BY ADV SRI.M.SASINDRAN OTHER PRESENT:

SMT.SHEEBA.P FOR PETITIONER, SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ======================================================

W.P.(C) No. 4269 of 2012 =============================================================

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2022

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers: “i) Writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P6 notice issued by the 4^th respondent.

ii) Declare that the respondents have no authority to recover any amount from the petitioner in violation of Section 215(9) of Panchayat Raj Act.

iii) Such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” (Sic)

2. The petitioner retired as the Junior Superintendent on 30.06.2002 from Thalayalaparamba Grama Panchayat. He was holding the additional charge of Secretary in Malappattam Grama Panchayat during the period from 07.03.2000 to 03.07.2001. An audit objection has been raised alleging excess expenditure by the audit department on 30.03.2000. The objection is about the purchase of excess quantity of sand for the construction work by the Panchayat in 1999-2000. But, the same was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P1 only on 13.10.2004. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply. Ext.P2 is the audit report. When the revenue recovery proceedings are initiated, the petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition.

3. Heard Adv.Sheeba P., the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and also the counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent Panchayat.

4. The short point raised by the petitioner is that the revenue recovery proceedings based on the audit report is issued without a surcharge certificate. When this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court directed the Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether any surcharge certificate is issued based on the audit report. The Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that no surcharge certificate is issued. If that is the case, no revenue recovery proceedings is possible. This point is considered by this Court in the judgment dated 01.12.2014 in WP(C) No.7347 of 2008, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:

“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 Panchayat, it cannot be said that the same would become the liability of the Secretary of t