IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24427 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------------- OP(LF).57/2006 of DISTRICT COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.T.KURIAN,AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, VATTACHAL HOUSE, PERUMPANACHI P.O.,MADAPPALLY, VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. BY ADV. MR.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 2. THE DISTRICT OF LOCAL FUNDS AUDIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, VANDIPERIYAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24427 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Set aside the finding of the learned District Court, Thodupuzha, in Ext.P7 in so far as it finds that there is negligence on the side of the petitioner in impleading the schemes and also to set aside the surcharge certificate No.LF 14456/SP Cell SE II/2004 dated 24/01/2006 after calling for the records which lead to Ext.P7 and which lead to the Surcharge Certificate. ii) To grant such other reliefs that are found just and proper to be granted in the facts W.P.(C).No.24427 OF 2009 Page numbers and circumstances of the case or as may be prayed for during the course of the pendency of this writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. 2. Petitioner has challenged the Surcharge Certificate issued to him by filing a writ petition O.P (LF) 57/2006 before the District Court, Thodupuzha. His petition was allowed by quashing the Surcharge Certificate. Petitioner has a grievance that though the order was rendered in his favour, in the order there is an adverse finding to the effect that he was negligent in discharge of his duties which resulted in the proceedings leading to the issue of the Surcharge Certificate. In the present writ petition, petitioner seeks to challenge that finding in the order of the District Judge invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.24427 OF 2009 Page numbers 3. Learned Government pleader has taken notice for the first and second respondents. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he was compelled to file the petition since the respondents 1 and 2 have already filed a writ petition challenging the order passed in O.P (L.F) 57/2006 passed by the learned District Judge. In case, for any reason the order is set aside allowing that writ petition, then, the finding entered against him that he was negligent, if not challenged, according to the counsel, would have severe consequences. As against the finding, which is stated to be adverse the petitioner I find, the petitioner cannot file a writ petition invoking the jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of W.P.(C).No.24427 OF 2009 Page numbers India. It may be open to the petitioner to canvass his grievance as against the finding entered against him in the writ petition that is filed by the first and second respondents which is stated to be pending before this court. Of course, that challenge can be raised subject to permission of the court. Reserving the right of the petitioner to raise the challenge, if so provided by law, in the pending writ petition filed by the first and second respondents against the order passed in Ext.P7 order, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv