IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 36823 of 2010(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.J.NAZIRUDHEEN, S/O.JAMALUDHEEN, THUMBIKUNNATHU VEEDU, EDAMON P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SRI.K.T.THOMAS (KANNAMPALLIL) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE PWD, ANCHAL BLOCK OFFICE, ANCHAL, PIN-691306. 4. THENMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, THENMALA, PIN-691 365. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.36823/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.TA.4/10 DATED 12/05/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE (RELEVANT PORTION) MEASUREMENT BOOK PERTAINING TO THE WORK DATED 28/04/2008. P3 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UPON COMPLETION OF THE WORK. P4 COPY OF the (RELEVANT PORTION) MEASUREMENT BOOK PERTAINING TO THE WORK DATED 17/04/2008. P5 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UPON COMPLETION OF THE WORK. P6 COPY OF THE PETITION TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 26/06/2004. P7 COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15/07/2004. P8 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 17/05/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P9 COPY OF the JUDGMENT DATED 09/07/2010 IN WP(C)NO.21360 OF 2010. P10 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L.F.P.T.1/.12389/10 DATED 18/09/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P11 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.T4-8215/10 DATED 28/09/2010 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P12 COPY OF THE DETAILED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P13 COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15/10/2010. P14 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.T4-8215/10 DATED 18/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT . P15 COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 10/08/2010 PRESENTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT . RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ sts P.A.TO.JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 36823 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the Convenor of the beneficiary Committee for the works under SGRY in the 4th respondent Grama Panchayat for the year 2003-2004. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P10 and seeking for a declaration that he could not be saddled with any liability towards audit objection raised as he had completed the entire works in time. The further prayer is for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from initiating any proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of the alleged amount due as per the audit objection. Prior to the issuance of Ext.P14 requiring him to show cause why revenue recovery proceedings should not be initiated the first respondent had issued Ext.P10 requiring the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.37,902/- and Rs.1,78,808/- with interest, in respect of Look Out Railway station road and Thenmala Grama Panchayat office road works. Subsequently, Ext.P11 notice was issued to him by the 4th respondent. As per Ext.P11 the petitioner was WPC.No.36823/2010 : 2 : required to remit Rs.43020/- and Rs.202656/- respectively including interest thereon. The contention of the petitioner is that he had submitted Ext.P12 statement before the first respondent at the time of hearing prior to the issuance of Ext.P10 and Ext.P10 was issued without taking into account the contentions/objections in Ext.P12. The petitioner has not produced any notice issued under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act in this writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that respondents are threatening him with coercive steps under the Revenue Recovery Act. However, there is nothing on record to show that such an action was resorted to by the respondents. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. The petitioner has also raised a contention that he has not been served with any surcharge order as well. Obviously, relevant provisions of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1996 requires explanation from the concerned Panchayat and from the concerned persons and in case of failure to give explanation charge/surcharge proceedings could be initiated under rule 20 of the Kerala Local Fund Rules, 1996. In case the petitioner is served with WPC.No.36823/2010 : 3 : surcharge order it would be open to the petitioner to assail such steps before the District Court within 14 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. In this case, the contention of the petitioner is that no charge or surcharge order under Rule 20 of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act was issued and, therefore, it is for the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. As already noticed hereinbefore, it is only the apprehension on the part of the petitioner that on the strength of Ext.P14 the respondents would initiate revenue recovery proceedings that made the petitioner to file this writ petition. True that he has also raised grievances against Ext.P10 order passed by the first respondent. Obviously, against the same he has already submitted Ext.P13 petition before the 1st respondent. In case, such steps were not already initiated by the respondents, it will only be appropriate for the first respondent to look into Ext.P13, in accordance with law, before initiating further action based on Ext.P10. It is ordered accordingly. However, if steps were already initiated it will be open to the petitioner to resort to appropriate action on receipt of such notices in accordance with law. WPC.No.36823/2010 : 4 : Subject to the said observation and direction this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge