IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 37700 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.P.SUKUMARANKUTTY, S/O. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, PULLUKOTTU HOUSE, VAKATHANAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 37700 of 2009(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15.2.2001. P2. COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.3.2001. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.7.2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1.3.2007. P5. COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SUPERINTENDENT , DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOTTAYAM DATED 12.7.94. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E3.8537/08 DATED 3.12.09 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R3 (a) COPY OF THE LIABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, KARUKACHAL ON 13.1.2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/ S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 37700 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a Special Grade Panchayat Secretary who retired from service on 31.07.1998. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging liabilities fixed on the petitioner on account of which DCRG due to the petitioner has not been released. By Ext.P3 order an amount of Rs.1,75,548.39 was fixed on the petitioner as liability. Later on, by Ext.P6 the petitioner was directed to show cause why an amount of Rs.51,547.45 should not be fixed as the liability. The petitioner is challenging the same. According to the petitioner, the said liability is not due from the petitioner. 2. With the help of a counter affidavit the Government Pleader would argue that the liability proposed W.P.(C)No. 37700 of 2009 -2- in Ext.P6 has been finalised by Ext.R3 (a) Liability Certificate and therefore the said amount has been rightly withheld from the DCRG due to the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Admittedly all amounts other than Rs.51,547.45 has been disbursed to the petitioner. Therefore the only question to be considered is whether the said liability is due from the petitioner. Ext.P6 is a show cause notice. In the same, it is specifically stated that based on the reply filed by the petitioner in respect of the liabilities the 6 Panchayats where the petitioner had worked has been addressed by the 3rd respondent requesting for their comments on the same. In Ext.P6, it is admitted that except Erattayar Panchayat the other 5 Panchayats have not cared to reply to the queries of the 3rd respondent in respect of the liabilities. The liabilities are on the basis of audit objections. The audit objections have to be cleared by the Panchayats. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that the respondents ought to have taken action against the concerned Panchayat W.P.(C)No. 37700 of 2009 -3- Secretaries for not replying to the queries put by the 3rd respondent in respect of the liabilities of the petitioner proposed in Ext.P6. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The respondents shall obtain appropriate replies from the 5 Panchayats referred to in Ext.P6 by taking appropriate coercive steps against them, if necessary, to the queries put by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter the petitioner shall be given another opportunity to represent against the fixation of liabilities whether reduced or Rs.51,547.45. The competent among the respondents shall take a fresh decision in the matter after considering all aspects in the matter as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it abundantly clear that, if the five Panchayats do not respond to the queries the respondents shall take appropriate steps to make W.P.(C)No. 37700 of 2009 -4- them give replies by appropriate coercive proceedings. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/