IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 6586 of 2008(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- E.A.UNNICHEKKAN, AGED 59, S/O.AYYAPPANKUTTY, EDATHADAN, ALOOR P.O PIN : 680 683, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO SRI.M.N.MANOJ SRI.PRASANTH K.DIVAKARAN SRIA.G.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.6586/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE SURCHARGE NOTICE DT. 19.9.06. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF RELEVANT AUDIT OBJEICTIONS ATTACHED ALONG WITH EXT.P1. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT. 28.3.04. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE SURCHARGE CERTIFICATE DT. 26.12.07. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 2.8.06 IN WPC. NO.5719/06 ON THE FILES OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 26.7.07 IN WPC. NO.11657/07 ON THE FILES OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 6586 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MAY 27, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4, a surcharge certificate issued by the Local Fund Audit Department of the Government of Kerala. 2. Ext.P4 discloses that the surcharge notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.1.2007 alleging that he had made certain excess payments and that in the process, caused loss of Rs.61264/- while working as Secretary of Kalpakancherry Grama Panchayat. The surcharge certificate in question (Ext.P4) is dated 26.12.2007. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner impugns the surcharge certificate on two grounds; one is that as is evident from the surcharge certificate itself the alleged irregular payment was made during the year 1998-99. According to him, the surcharge certificate could not have been issued beyond four years from the period during which the payment was made. To sustain this contention of the learned counsel, he refers to the proviso to WP(C) 6586 of 2008 2 sec.215 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 which provides that no surcharge certificate under sec.215 shall be made after a period of four years from the date on which the expenditure in question was incurred. Admittedly, in this case the expenditure in question was incurred during the year 1998-99. The surcharge certificate having been issued only on 26.12.2007 and it is clearly beyond four years, the time limit prescribed under sec.215(11) of the Act, and therefore on that ground itself, Ext.P4 deserves to be interfered with. This contention of the learned counsel needs to be accepted on the additional ground that this very contention is accepted by this court in Ext.P6 judgment rendered in WP(C) 11657/2007. 3. Yet another contention that is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is relying on Rule 20(11) of the Local Fund Audit Rules, 1996 which provides that the surcharge certificate shall be served on the persons responsible within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the surcharge notice by such person. Though this plea is seen to have been accepted by this court in Ext.P5 judgment, the learned Government Pleader, making reference to the instruction that he has, points out that the time WP(C) 6586 of 2008 3 limit of four months has since been enhanced to two years as per G.O.(P) No.374/2006 dated 22.9.2006. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, the second ground of attack on Ext.P4 does not merit acceptance. 4. Be that as it may, now that I have found that the surcharge notice has been issued after a period of four years, there is clear infraction of the proviso to sec.215(9) of the Panchayat Raj Act and on that ground Ext.P4 will stand set aside. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-