IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3552 of 2009(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.K.RAVI, RETIRED MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, THADATHIL VEEDU, KANIPAYOOR POST, KUNNAMKULAM 680517. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.CHINNAN SMT.SUSAL A. CHINNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DISTRICT LOCAK FUND AUDIT, TRICHUR 680.003 2. DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT,TRIVANDRUM. 3. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THALLAPPILY, WADAKKENCHERRY, TRICHUR. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, KANNIPAYOOR, KUNNAMKULAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAK FUND DEPARTMENT,TRIVANDRUM 6. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY LOCAL FUND ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE, TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 7. SECRETARY, KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R1 TO R6 SRI. GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE FOR R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.3552 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd February,2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Exhibits P1 and P4 notices. He is seeking for a further direction commanding the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit-P5. The facts pleaded show the following. Petitioner retired from service as Secretary of the Kunnamkulam Municipality. He was the Secretary therein between 20.7.1996 and 31.5.1999. Government had allotted funds to the Municipality to provide financial assistance for the construction of houses to weaker sections of the society. A five member Beneficiary Committee was formed in the Municipality which included the Chairman, the leader of the Opposition Party and Chairman of the Standing Committee of Work, Chairman of the Standing Committee of Health and Chairman of the Standing Committee of Finance. An amount of Rs.1 crore was allotted by the Government for the said purpose. In accordance with the guidelines, the Municipality invited W.P ( C) No.3552 of 2009 2 applications to select eligible persons. 2. There was a dispute regarding the application of Sri.T.A Balanchandran and the Revenue Inspector of the Municipality had submitted a report stating that he owned a house in the then Arthat Panchyat. The stand taken by the applicant was that report of the Inspector is wrong. Applicant had produced a certificate from the then Secretary of the Arthat Panchayat and after getting the genuineness of the certificates confirmed by the Secretary of that Panchayat his application along with certificates was presented along with other applications before the Selection Committee, which sanctioned the applications of 20 applicants including the application of Balachandran petitioner. The amount by way of subsidy and instalments was paid to him. Accordingly, the beneficiary constructed a house also. The petitioner was served with Exhibit-P1 notice whereby an amount of Rs.35,000 plus interest have been fixed as liability. The amount represents the financial assistance allegedly given illegally to T.A. Balachandran. The petitioner submitted Exhibit-P2 request before the W.P ( C) No.3552 of 2009 3 Municipality for perusal of relevant files which is followed by another representation Exhibit-P3. It is stated that no opportunity was given to peruse the files. Thereafter, Exhibit-P4 recovery notice under the Revenue Recovery Act has been issued to him. Petitioner has filed Exhibit-P5 objection before the 3rd respondent in the matter. 3. In view of the objection raised by the petitioner, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider Exhibit-P5 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders after considering the matter on merits. Pending consideration of the same, further action for recovery will be kept in abeyance. While considering the matter, the 3rd respondent will advert to the contentions raised by the petitioner that the relevant provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act namely Section 295 (9) prescribes a period of limitation as 4 years, and already 9 years have lapsed. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.3552 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No.3552 of 2009 5