IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 27939 of 2007(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T.C.JOSE, CONTRACTOR, THAZHATHU HOUSE, NELLIKUNNU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR. 3. THE CORPORATION COUNCIL, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR. ADDL.4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THRISSUR. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.16514/07 DATED 17-12-07. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL G.P.SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.A. No.16515/2007 in W.P.(C) No.27939/2007 Dismissed. 21stJanuary, 2007 Sd/-Pius Kuriakose, Judge. mn. Pius C. Kuriakose, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 27939 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of January,2008 JUDGMENT The demand made by the Corporation, Thrissur for recovery of certain amount, which had been paid in excess to the petitioner in a contract, is under challenge on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. 2. Though learned counsel for the petitioner addressed me regarding merits, I am not inclined. But his submission that the proceedings initiated for recovery are barred by limitation, in view of sub-section (1) of section 539 of the Municipalities Act seems to have some force. Learned standing counsel for the corporation drew my attention to the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the corporation and submitted that specific direction was given by the Kerala Legislature Audit Accounts Committee after its discussion in the sitting held on 26-10-2004 and therefore the period from 8-8-2000 to 26-10-2004 is to be excluded. I do not think that there is room for such exclusion, since the proviso to section 539 deals with exclusion WPC 27939/07 2 only in situations covered by section 382. However, I do not propose to decide the issue finally, since in Ext.P11 order the Corporation does not appear to have addressed the question of limitation specifically. 3. Accordingly, I allow the writ petition quashing Exts.P1, P4, P5, P9, P11 and P12 and direct the corporation to hear the petitioner once again on the question whether the recovery proceedings initiated by the Corporation is barred by limitation under section 539 of the Municipalities Act. Hearing, as directed above, shall be conducted at the earliest, at any rate within two months of receiving copy of this judgment and orders has passed without delay. Pius C. Kuriakose, Judge. mn. WPC 27939/07 3