IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18449 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.D.REMANI,JYOTHI NIVAS AYAMANAM,KOTTAYAM, (RETD.SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY PUTHUPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH) BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR) KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR LOCAL FUND AUDIT,KOTTAYAM. 4. PUTHUPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH KOTTAYAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS KOTTAYAM. R1,2,R3 AND R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. K.P. PRADEEP R4 BY ADV. SRI.KARJET KODUVATH AND ADV. MR.C.S.MANILAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 DATED NIL. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE PANACHAYATH COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 23.03.2006. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.02.2007 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH ON 21.11.2007 EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 27.11.2007 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 02.05.2005 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 34 OF Revenue Recovery ACT. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 02.05.2005 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 7 OF Revenue Recovery ACT EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION MADE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 08.04.2008 ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.06.2008. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT DATED 13.06.2008. EXT.P10. : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.02.2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.09.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PANCHAYAT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 18449 OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 8th February , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who was the secretary to the 4th respondent- Panchayat and who retired from the service on 31.12.2006, is before this Court challenging Exts. P6 and P7 demand notices issued by the first respondent under the Revenue Recovery Act. There is another prayer to set aside Ext. P10 order passed by the 5th respondent and Ext. P8 requisition issued by the 4th respondent on the basis of Ext. P10. The challenge is raised on several grounds . 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that insinuation is made with reference to the disbursement of certain amounts by the Panchayat under various schemes, mainly stating that the beneficiaries had not completed the works and in the said circumstance, the amount was liable to be recovered from such beneficiaries/convenors of the projects or in case of W.P.(C) No. 18449 OF 2008 2 failure, from the concerned officers, as observed in the Audit Report pertaining to the year 2002-03. 3. Pursuant to the observation in Ext. P1 audit report, the Panchayat Committee resolved, as per Ext. P2 minutes to proceed with further steps for realisation of the amount from the defaulters concerned and authorised the Jr. Superintendent in this regard as per the proceedings dated 23.03.2006. The specific case of the petitioner is that no proceedings are liable to be sustained as against the petitioner for want of necessary mandatory steps as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Local Fund Audit Act (Sec.15) and also Rule 12(13) of the Local Fund Audit Rules. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on Sec. 259 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act to contend that the liability, if at all any, is time barred and as such, the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act could not have been moved under any circumstances. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who made the submissions with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the impugned W.P.(C) No. 18449 OF 2008 3 notices under the Revenue Recovery Act were issued pursuant to the order dated 02.05.2008 of the District Collector, Kottayam authorising the concerned Tahsildar to realise the due amount with interest and collection charges from the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit in response to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent. The fourth respondent has filed a statement justifying initiation of the revenue recovery proceedings stating that the outcome of the decision taken by the Panchayat Committee authorising the Jr. Superintendent to cure the defects was not communicated by the petitioner, who was the secretary and hence that the amount is liable to be satisfied by the petitioner herself. 5. The short question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether Exts.P6 and P7 demand notices issued by the first respondent under the Revenue Recovery Act are liable to be enforced against the petitioner. There is no dispute that the liability in respect of the transaction pertains to the year 2002- 03 . There is also a finding by the 5th respondent in Ext.P10 that the aforesaid liability is in respect of the period prior to three W.P.(C) No. 18449 OF 2008 4 years of retirement of the petitioner and hence not liable to be recovered from the DCRG; which in turn is sought to be recovered invoking the relevant provisions of other enactments. 6. This being the position, the remaining question is whether a 'time barred debt' can be recovered by resorting to the remedy under the Revenue Recovery Act. This has been answered by the Apex Court in clear crystal terms as per the decision reported in State of Kerala vs. V.R. Kalliyanikutty (1999 (2) KLT 146) holding that no such exercise can be pursued to recover a time barred debt. In the said circumstance, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The impugned notices under the Revenue Recovery Act are set aside . The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. No cost. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk