IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37800 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PHILIP MATHEW, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. C. MATHAI, CHERUVILA VEEDU, PALLICKAL.P.O, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA LOCAL FUND AUDIT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND ACCOUNTS, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM. 4. KEERAMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. P.N. BINU, PLAKKITHADAM HOUSE, KEERAMPARA, KOTHAMANGALAM. ADV. SRI.C.DILIP FOR R4 DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 37800 of 2008 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 6.12.98 OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.8.97 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AUDIT REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE INITIMATION SERVED TO THE PETITIONER REGARDING THE MEETING OF LOCAL FUND ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE, KERALA LEGISLATURE DATED 10.6.05 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 1.4.05 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 3.8.05 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 20.1.06 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXT.R2(a)- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.1.06 (TRUE COPY) P. A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).37800/2008 ....................... Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner was the Secretary of the 4th respondent Panchayat. During his tenure, in relation to the work of tarring of Millupady- Paratt Road, an audit objection was raised that an excess payment of Rs.17,219.75 was made. A revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the convener who allegedly received the aforesaid amount by issuing Ext.P5 notice. There upon, the convener caused Ext.P6 notice issued to the Panchayat. Petitioner submits that without pursuing the matter against the convener, Ext.P7 revenue recovery notice was issued to him proposing to recover an amount of Rs.17,250/-. It was at that stage, the writ petition was filed. 2. According to the petitioner, the amount having been received by the convener, the Local Fund Audit recommended recovery from the convener and therefore the 4th respondent Panchayat should have pursued revenue recovery proceedings against the convener and not against him. W.P.(C).37800/08 2 3. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader referring to the counter affidavit, contended that being the Secretary of the Panchayt, petitioner is the custodian of the Panchayat funds. It is stated that for any mis-utilisation, petitioner is equally responsible. According to the learned Government Pleader, petitioner was summoned by the legislative Committee and the petitioner had accepted his liability and that it was in pursuance to the above, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against him. 4. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner had accepted the liability, still the facts show, that in pursuance to Ext.P3 audit report of the Local Fund Audit, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the convener. It would appear that the revenue recovery proceedings were dropped on receipt of Ext.P6 notice. Once the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated, in my view, respondents ought to have taken the proceedings to its logical conclusions and attempt should have been made to recover the amounts that are due. Petitioner being the Secretary of the Panchayat at the relevant period and being the W.P.(C).37800/08 3 custodian of the funds of the Panchayat, he can also be held liable, if recovery, from the recipient of the excess amount is not possible. In this case, going by the materials that stage has not reached in as much as further action based on Ext.P5 has not been continued. 5. Therefore, I direct the respondents to continue the revenue recovery proceedings against the convener in pursuance to Ext.P5 and proceed against the petitioner only in the event recovery from the convener is not possible. writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs