IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946 OP(KAT) NO. 432 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.09.2017 IN TA NO.983 OF

2013 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN TA:

1 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, NOW REDESIGNATED AS-

THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR LOCAL FUND AUDIT, IDUKKI, NOW REDESIGNATED AS THE SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, IDUKKI.

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE GP RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT IN TA & 4TH RESPONDENT IN TA:

1 C. KUMARAN, (FORMERLY SECRETARY, PEERMADE GRAMA PANCHAYATH), SMITHA BHAVAN, PEERKADU P.O., IDUKKI, KERALA.

2 THE SECRETARY, PEERMADE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PEERMADE P.O., IDUKKI 685 531.

BY ADVS.

SRI.M.V.BOSE K.JAJU BABU (SR.)

SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The State challenges the order of the Tribunal in interfering with the surcharge issued. The surcharge expenditure referred to in the certificate relates to the year 2004. The surcharge certificate was issued in the year 2009. Placing reliance on the proviso to Section 215(9) of the Kerala Panchayth Raj Act, the Tribunal interfered with the matter on the ground that this was issued beyond the period referred to in the proviso. Under the proviso to Section 215(9) of the Act, no surcharge under this sub-section shall be made after a period of four years from the date on which the expenditure in question was incurred. That means, if an expenditure was incurred in the year 2004, the surcharge proceedings should have been concluded within four years thereon, i.e., in the year 2008 itself. Admittedly, in this case, the surcharge certificate was issued in December 2009.

In the light of the law as above, the Tribunal has rightly interfered with the surcharge certificate. There is no scope for interference, and accordingly, the original petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/-

P. KRISHNA KUMAR JUDGE PR APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 432/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SURCHARGE NOTICE DATED

15.5.2009.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SURCHARGE NOTICE DATED

15.5.2009.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF THE OBJECTIONS IN AUDIT REPORT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED

18.7.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SURCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED 11.12.2009.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED 11.12.2009.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 23800 OF 2003, DATED 10.11.2006.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2009 OF THE LOCAL FUND AUDIT DIRECTOR.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2009 OF THE LOCAL FUND AUDIT DIRECTOR.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.1.2009 IN WPC NO.1450/2009 (V).

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN TA NO.983/2013 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED

14.09.2017.

Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO. 374/2006 FIN DATED 22.09.2006 Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER APPLICATION ALONG WITH EXHIBITS P1 TO P10.