IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15171 of 2009(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.VARGHESE, ASST. DISTRICT INDUSTRIES OFFICER (NOW RETIRED FROM SERVICE) PADINJAREDATHU HOUSE, UDUMPANNOR.P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI(DIST). BY ADV. MR.RAJU JOSEPH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, TRIVANDRUM-695033. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU.P.O. 3. THE MUVATTUPUZHA BLOCK PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUVATTUPUZHA. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No.15171 of 2009-N ------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.Raju Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. Ext.P6 order of surcharge passed under Section 16(1) of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994 and Ext.P5 surcharge certificate issued by the Director of Local Fund Audit are under challenge in this writ petition. Sub section (3) of section 16 of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act 1994 confers on the petitioner the right to file an appeal challenging Exts.P5 and P6 in the District Court having jurisdiction. The petitioner thus has an effective and alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the District Court. Since the petitioner has effective and alternative remedy I am of the opinion that he should pursue the said remedy instead of seeking the intervention of this Court at this stage. 3. Ext.P5 surcharge order was passed on 5.5.2009. This writ petition was filed on 1.6.2009 within the period of one month prescribed in the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act for filing an appeal. Since the petitioner had moved this Court instead of filing an appeal in the District Court, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be given a W.P(C) No.15171 of 2009-N 2 reasonable time to file an appeal before the District Court. I am also opinion that in order to enable the petitioner to move the District Court in appeal and seek interim orders, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 surcharge certificate should be kept in abeyance for a short period. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with the direction that in the event of the petitioner filing an appeal within one month from today in the District Court having jurisdiction, the District Court shall consider the same and pass orders thereon with notice to the petitioner and the respondents. In order to enable the petitioner to move the District Court and seek interim orders, I also direct further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P5 surcharge certificate and Ext.P6 surcharge order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today. The contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN ab JUDGE