Kerala High Court
T.V.Narayanan vs State Of Kerala on 11 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH 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:
-2-
W.P.(C). No. 4269 of 2012
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:
-3-
W.P.(C). No. 4269 of 2012
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
======================================================
W.P.(C) No. 4269 of 2012
=============================================================
Dated this the 11th 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 4th 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
W.P.(C). No. 4269 of 2012
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 3rd 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
W.P.(C). No. 4269 of 2012
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 the Panchayat.
Such amounts can be recovered as a liability of the
officers concerned in accordance with the provisions of
the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Kerala Local
Fund Audit Act. In so far as it is conceded that there is
no proceedings against the petitioner under the Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act and the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act,
it has to be held that the proceedings initiated against
the petitioner is without jurisdiction. That apart, it is not
W.P.(C). No. 4269 of 2012
disputed that the petitioner was not heard before Ext.P3
notice was issued to him directing payment of the
amount raised as objection by the auditors. Ext.P3
proceedings are, therefore, violative of the principles of
natural justice also.
6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3
notice issued by the Panchayat and P6 and P7 notices
issued by the authorities under the Revenue Recovery
Act are quashed."
In the light of the same, the revenue recovery proceeding
initiated against the petitioner without surcharge certificate is
not possible. Therefore, this writ petition is only to be allowed
and I do so. Ext.P6 revenue recovery proceeding is quashed.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
das
W.P.(C). No. 4269 of 2012
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4269/2012
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13-10-
2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF PARA
16 OF AUDIT REPORT
Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE REPLY TO AUDIT OBJECTION
DATED 30-10-2004 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24-09-
2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 17-09-2008
FROM THE KERALA LEGISLATURE
SECRETARIAT
Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE
DATED 25-1-2012 ISSUED UNDER SEC. 7
AND 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 6-07-
2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29-05-
2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P C
6586/2008
