IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 18531 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.S.MUHAMMED, SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY (RETD), VANIYAMPURAYIL HOUSE, KUNNAM, MUTHALAKUDAM P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, (IDUKKI), THODUPUZHA. 4. THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, NEDUMKANDAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NEDUMKANDAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, HE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 18531 OF 2008 F = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th June 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that while he was working as Secretary of the Nedumkandam Grama Panchayat, Exts. P1 and P2 surcharge certificates were issued, which were challenged by the petitioner in O.P. No. 61 of 2006 before the District Court, Thodupuzha. It is stated by the petitioner that the said O.P. was disposed of by Ext. P6 judgment allowing his petition. Petitioner submits that whatever liability that he had, has been paid and that the receipt of which has been acknowledged as per Ext. P7. According to him, despite the discharge of his liability as above, again Ext. P8 notice has been issued for realising the very same liability. On receipt of Ext. P8, petitioner has filed Ext. P9 before the Secretary of the Panchayat, the 4th respondent, informing him that the liability already stands discharged and that the demand raised again is unsustainable. He pursued the matter by filing Ext. P10 representation also before the 2nd respondent, but, however, without any response. It is in these W.P.(C) No. 18531 OF 2008 -2- circumstances, the writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext. P8 and to restrain the respondents from proceeding with the recovery action. 2. It is the positive case of the petitioner that the liability has already been discharged as per Ext. P7 and this has been highlighted by the petitioner in Ext. P9representation filed before the 4th respondent. Therefore, in my view, it is for the 4th respondent to examine this plea of the petitioner and to decide on this matter before the recovery action is continued against the petitioner. This, the 4th respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that until a decision is taken as above, further action pursuant to Ext. P8 will be kept in abeyance. 3. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 2 and 4 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-