IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1557 of 2009(I) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M.INDIRA DEVI, VANDANA, ELAMAKKARA PO., COCHIN-26. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENTS : ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER P. NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO: 1557 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner retired as District Registrar (Audit) Registration Department, Ernakulam on 30.09.2006. The complaint raised in the writ petition is that the DCRG amount of Rs.3,22,146/- sanctioned to him still remains undisbursed by the Accountant General. 2. The petitioner, while working as District Registrar (General) of Idukki District, he was received a letter issued by the SRO, Pothanicadu alongwith a copy of the Audit Report. In the Audit Report, the Accountant General pointed out loss of revenue during the period 2002-2003 in Pothanicad SRO, wherein the petitioner was working during that period. The contention raised by the petitioner herein is that actually there was no loss of revenue. Ext.P3 is the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the Accountant General itself for the audit objection raised in the audit report. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that Ext.P15 is an order passed by the Government whereby the Government had allowed waving of similar objections. In Ext.P15, it is ordered that Sub Registrar Officer or wpc:1557 of 2009 2 others in the office will not be liable for loss of revenue on account of late receipt of intimation regarding increase in stamp duty and registration fee. It is also directed that the retirement benefits of the concerned SROs should not be withheld on account of such revenue loss. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be made liable for such a revenue loss covered by Ext.P15. The second respondent will therefore, take up the matter for clearing the audit objection raised in Ext.P2, in the light of Ext.P3 explanation and Ext.P15. The same shall be disposed of within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner. Final orders shall be communicated to him for enabling him to draw the DCRG, pending the final decision, proceedings for recovery will be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE bps