1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.12902 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 Mohammed Pitchai ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Rajdurai, Secretariat, Chennai. 2. The Assistant Director of Rural Development(Audit), Village Panchayat, Tirunelveli. 3. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order of the first respondent in Government Letter No.34236/Para 4/2008-2 dated 22.07.11 confirming the order of the third respondent dated 29.07.08 and surcharge certificate issued by the second respondent dated 07.10.03 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam For Respondents: Mr.M.Alagathevan Special Government Pleader. O R D E R The petitioner has come with the above writ petition challenging the dismissal of his appeal against the order of the District Collector, on the ground that it was barred by time. 2. Heard Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr.M.Alagathevan, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. 3. As against a surcharge order passed on 24.02.2004 directing recovery of a sum of Rs.1,90,338/- from the petitioner, the petitioner filed an appeal under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats(Surcharge, Disallowance and Charge) Rules, 2000. On the sole ground that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation, without properly explaining the delay, the Government rejected the appeal by the order impugned in the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The impugned order shows that the reasons adduced by the petitioner for the delay have not been properly considered. According to the petitioner, the District Collector himself continued the proceedings even after the surcharge order dated 24.02.2004. In any case, the appeal was statutory one. Therefore the right of appeal should not get defeated on the ground of delay. Hence, I am of the view that the delay can be condoned and the Government directed to consider the appeal on merits, subject however to certain conditions, in view of the long efflux of time. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the appeal against the surcharge order is condoned. The first respondent is directed to take the appeal filed by the petitioner on 01.12.2008 and dispose it of in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the condition that the petitioner pays 25% of the surcharge imposed by the District Collector within a period of three weeks. The first respondent shall hear the appeal upon production of proof by the petitioner of paying 25% surcharge order dated 24.02.2004. However, the payment shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner on merits in the appeal before the first respondent. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1. The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Rajdurai, Secretariat, Chennai. 2. The Assistant Director of Rural Development(Audit), Village Panchayat, Tirunelveli. 3. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. +1cc to Mr.H.Arumugam, Advocate, SR.No.39417 ssl GH : 15.11.2011 : 2p/5c W.P.(MD)No. 12902 of 2011 14.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/