IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25426 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.M.VARGHESE RETIRED SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH , RESIDING AT KODIYATTU HOUSE, THARIODE NORTH.P.O.,VIA, POZHUTHANA ,WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS O/O.DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS WAYANAD, KALPETTA. 2. THE SECRETARY POOTHADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH POOTHADY, WAYANAD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, VYTHIRI. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, PADINHARATHARA. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2010 , THE COURT ON 03/12/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25426 of 2008(B) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX ----------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT to the PETITIONER DT. 13.8.2007. EXT.P2. COPY OF LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE PANCHAYAT. EXT.P3. COPY OF LETTER OF THE DY. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT. EXT.P4. COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT T THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE CETIICATE ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER T DT. 31.7.2008. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------ / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.25426 Of 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the revenue recovery notice issued as per Exhibits P4 and P5. An amount of Rs.36,022/- allegedly the liability while he was working as the Secretary of the Poothadi Grama Panchayat, was demanded. 2. The petitioner was the Secretary of the Panchayat during the period 23.9.1996 to 1.6.1999. He was relieved from the Panchayat on 1.6.1999 on transfer to Vellamunda Grama Panchayat. Ultimately, he retired from service on 29.2.2000. It is pointed out that he was issued a non-liability certificate after verification of the records by all Panchayats including Poothadi Grama Panchayat and he has already drawn his retirement benefits. 3. It appears that the revenue recovery notice has been issued on a requisition by the Secretary of the Panchayat itself. Exhibit P1 is a notice issued to the petitioner by the Secretary, wherein the basis for the fixation of liability is stated as the deficiency in the supply of two TV sets. W.P.(C)No.25426/08 -2- 4. It appears that the Panchayat in the annual plan for the year 1997-98 purchased seven TV sets for an amount of Rs.1,26,076/-. The allegation is that out of these, details of two TV sets could not be traced. It is explained by the petitioner that all the TV sets were installed in various colonies and the petitioner has produced a letter issued by the then President of the Panchayat stating that all the TV sets have been installed in seven different colonies. 5. The petitioner, on receipt of the notice, complained to the Assistant Director of Panchayats, who by Exhibit P3 directed the Secretary of the Panchayat to move the Local Fund Audit along with the records of the Panchayat to get the audit objection waived. It appears that without taking any further action in the matter, revenue recovery steps have been initiated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there cannot be any action against the petitioner, in the light of the fact that all the TV sets have been installed as evident from Exhibit P5 letter of the President of the Panchayat. It is pointed out that the petitioner retired from service long back and the audit objection was not waived since the proper records have not been produced W.P.(C)No.25426/08 -3- by the Secretary of the Panchayat. In the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary reliance is placed on the report of the Local Fund Audit Committee. No steps have been taken by the Secretary of the Panchayat to get the audit objection waived in spite of direction given by the Assistant Director in Exhibit P3. No surcharge proceedings have been finalised also. Therefore, evidently, Exhibits P4 and P5 are premature. Without finalising the liability, no revenue recovery action can be initiated. Evidently, the petitioner had retired from service long ago on 29.2.2000. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Secretary of the Panchayat to produce the records in the matter as directed in Exhibit P3 to get the audit objection waived. The petitioner was also not issued with any notice prior to the present action by the audit party. For all these reasons, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the Writ Petition. Exhibits P4 and P5 are quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed to that extent. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) dsn