IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1870 of 2009(V) ------------------------------------------ OPLF.16/2007 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 2. DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUNDS AUDIT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED FAZIL RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & R3: 1. P.D.RAVEENDRAN, PATHIYIL HOUSE MELAMPARA PO, BHARANGANAM, KOTTAYAM DIST. 2. SECRETARY, KARUNAPURAM GRAMA PACHAYATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.1870 of 2009 V -------------------------- JUDGMENT Heard the learned Government Pleader Sri.Mohammed Fazil. 2. This writ petition is filed assailing Exhibit P7 judgment of the District Judge, Thodupuzha in O.P.(Local Fund) No.16/07. By Exhibit P7 judgment, the court below allowed the application filed by the first respondent under Section 20(13) of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act to set aside the Surcharge Certificate Nos.LF 11295/Spl.cell (Sc 2) 2005 dated 7.11.2006 and LF 11295/Spl.cell (Sc 2) 2005 dated 7.11.2006 for the reason that the claims made therein are hopelessly barred by limitation in view of the proviso to sub section (9) to Section 215 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, which mandates that no surcharge shall be made after a period of four years from the date on which the expenditure in question was incurred. WPC 1870/09 2 3. Learned Government Pleader has no dispute that the claim has been made after a period of four years from the date the expenditure in question was incurred. But, his contention is that by reason of Section 22 of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994, any provision contained in any other law for the time being in force relating to the audit of accounts of a local authority or a local fund included in the schedule is repugnant to the provisions of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, the latter shall prevail and the former to be avoided to the extent of such repugnancy. All the same, Government Pleader submits that under the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act no period is prescribed for advancing a claim for surcharge and therefore, the provisions of the proviso to sub section (9) to Section 215 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act is inconsistent with the provisions of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994 and hence, there won't be any limitation. WPC 1870/09 3 4. The argument advanced is unsound. When no provision is made in the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, there is no question of any other provision in that behalf in any other statute being repugnant. The submission that there is no provision made in the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act limiting the time does not enable the claim being advanced at any time. The omission to provide any time limit in the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act means that the provision contained in the proviso to Section 215 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act. There is no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is, hence, dismissed. 19th January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv