IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 12517 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T.G.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O GOVINDAN, AGE 33 YEARS, THEKKEKOYIKKAL HOUSE, CHEPPANAM, PANANGAD(VIA), KUMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JNANASEKHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KUMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE KUMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE FOR R2,3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.12517/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner by Ext.P5. The facts admitted by the petitioner are that, being the convener of a work in connection with the construction of a godown, petitioner had received an amount of Rs.41,525/- from the respondent Panchayat on 22.3.2002. The work was not completed. While the petitioner accuses that the Panchayat is responsible for this, the Panchayat has a totally different story to say. Irrespective of this, according to the petitioner, the first notice that he received is Ext.P1 dated 13.2.2008. To Ext.P1, he submitted Ext.P2 reply. In Ext.P2, again he contended that he had collected materials to the extent of Rs.28,000/- and he is willing to pay the WP(c).No.12517/2008 2 balance amount raised by him. Again Ext.P3 notice was issued, to which Ext.P4 reply was given and finally by Ext.P5, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated for realising their dues from the petitioner along with the interest. It is this proceedings that is challenged in this writ petition mainly contending that what is sought to be recovered is a time barred debt. 2. The Panchayat on the other hand would submit that the petitioner had misappropriated the entire amount. It is stated that, when the liability was indicated in the audit report, Ext.R3(a) notice was issued by the Panchayat on 1.7.2005. The Panchayat would also say that in Ext.P4 the petitioner had accepted the liability and therefore there is nothing irregular in Ext.P4. 3. Admittedly, the payment in question was received by the petitioner on 22.3.2002. Therefore, if proceedings initiated was by Ext.P1, that was time barred. Panchayat relies on Ext.R3(a) issued in 2005. Petitioner contends that WP(c).No.12517/2008 3 this notice was not received by him. Panchayat has not produced any record to show that this notice was servedon the petitioner. Panchayat has also not produced any document to show that the petitioner has given any acknowledgment of liability in response to Ext.R3(a). In these circumstances I am not inclined to accept the contention of the Panchayat, that the debt was acknowledged by the petitioner in 2005 and hence it is not time barred. 4. In these circumstances, I must hold that, when the proceedings was initiated by Ext.P1 dated 13.2.2008, the debt had become time barred, in view of the provisions contained in the Limitation Act. If the debt had become time barred as contended by the counsel for the petitioner, which has been accepted by me, in view of the decisions reported in 1999(2)KLT 146(SC) and 2002(2) KLT 834, the revenue recovery proceedings to recover such a debt is also vitiated. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is quashed and the respondents are WP(c).No.12517/2008 4 restrained from enforcing Ex.P1 and P3 against the petitioner. 5. The petitioner is not disputing his liability to refund the amount after deducting Rs.28,000/- which according to him has been spent for purchasing materials for execution of the work. According to the learned counsel, this admitted amount has already been paid. It is for the Panchayat to verify the same and if it is factually wrong, the amount can also be recovered by appropriate proceedings. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.12517/2008 5