IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31691 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.SURENDRA LAL,ASSISTANT ENGINEER, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, THALASSERY(FORMERLY WORKING AS TOWN PLANNER/ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY,KOTTYAM). BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY,KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY,THALASSERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR),KOTTAYAM. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.31691 OF 2009 (F) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Since, April 2009, petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer, in the in Thalasseri Municipality. During his previous tenure at Kottayam Municipality, he had received an advance of Rs.8,59,367/- for execution of Municipal projects. According to the petitioner he had accounted for the full advance received and vouchers were also produced. However, he was issued Ext.P3 notice informing that vouchers were not produced by him and he was also issued Ext.P4 stating that more than Rs.15 lakhs was due to the Kottayam Municipality. 2. He replied to Ext.P3 by Ext.P5 reiterating that vouchers were already produced. According to the petitioner there has not been any progress in the matter since then. Irrespective of the stand still in the matter it is his complaint that since 2009, recovery has been effected from his salary at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month. This is also continuing. Meanwhile he is now issued Ext.P8 revenue recovery notices proposing recovery of an amount of Rs.15,10,620/- towards the liability that he allegedly WPC.No.31691 /09 :2 : owes to the Kottayam Municipality. 3. On receipt of Ext.P8 he has filed Ext.P9 objection to the District Collector contending that, vouchers were produced before the Kottayam Municipality and that no money is due from him. Counsel contends that, if the vouchers produced by him are verified by the first respondent, unsustainability of the recovery notice will be evident. 4. I heard the Standing Counsel for the first respondent Municipality also. 5. In the light of the facts as pleaded by the petitioner and the submissions made by the counsel on either side, I feel that, at this distance of time, what is required to be done is to direct the first respondent, the Kottayam Municipality, to verify whether the vouchers were produced by the petitioner and if so produced, the exact amount that has been accounted by the petitioner. Once this exercise is undertaken, if any further amount is found to be due from the petitioner, for that amount only revenue recovery proceedings need be continued. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. I. The first respondent shall verify its files and vouchers that are allegedly produced by the petitioner and quantify the WPC.No.31691 /09 :3 : amount which has been accounted by the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and a report thereof shall be submitted to the District Collector, 3rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks fro, the date of production of a copy of the judgment. ii. Once the report is received as above, the District Collector shall consider Ext.P9 objection filed by the petitioner to Ext.P8 revenue recovery notices, in the light of the facts disclosed in the report so received from the Municipality. iii. Before the District Collector takes final decision in the matter the petitioner should also be given notice and he should also be heard. IV. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with and orders shall be passed by the District Collector within six weeks from the date of receipt of report from the Municipality as stated above. v. It is directed that until the aforesaid process is completed recovery pursuant to Ext.P8 will be kept in abeyance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.31691 /09 :4 :