Partly allowed

C.H.Moidu v. the Kozhikode District Panchayat & Ors.

Kerala HC1 Oct 2013WP(C)/690/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered an allegation of disbursement of an excess amount of 50,000 Rs to the petitioner as convener of a beneficiary committee. The court quashed the demand notice, remitted the matter to the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit to determine liability without delay, and fixed a date for parties to appear.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 demand notice quashed; matter remitted to third respondent to determine liability and communicate to parties; date fixed for appearance; entire exercise to be completed within two months.

C.H.Moidu Vs the Kozhikode District Panchayat… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/9TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 690 of 2011 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

C.H. MOIDU, CHINGALINTAVIDA HOUSE, PULIYAVU.P.O, PARAKADAVU VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, REP.; BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶13

4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICE VATAKARA - 673 101.

¶14

R,R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR

¶15

R... BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANITHA RAVINDRAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-102013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 690 of 2011 (I)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 30-3-2002

¶21

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-10-20013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶22

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-3-2004 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶23

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-7-2004

¶24

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER OF SANCTION DATED 28-9-2004

¶25

EXT.P6 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶26

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶27

EXT.P8 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15-3-2010 SUBMITTED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶28

EXT.P8(a) COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 7-4-2010 SUBMITTED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

¶29

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

SMM

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶35

= = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.690 of 2011

¶36

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = =

¶37

Dated this the 1^st day of October, 2013

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

The issue pertains to the alleged disbursement of an excess amount of 50,000-(Rupees fifty thousand only) to the petitioner₹ who was the convener of a beneficiary Committee. The allegation in Ext.P7 audit report is that an excess amount of 50,000/-₹ (Rupees fifty thousand only) was disbursed to the petitioner. Ext.P7 audit report has been issued in terms of Section 215(4) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act read with Section 13 of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act.

¶40

The petitioner maintains that only the sum of 50,000/-₹ (Rupees fifty thousand only) withheld by Ext.P2 order was later disbursed to him after completion of work. The petitioner relies on Ext.P5 order to contend that it is supported by the Panchayath resolution. The second respondent Panchayath on the other hand contends that the petitioner was disbursed an excess amount of 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) even₹ though it was exempted by the government. The second respondent has a further case that the sum of 50,000/- (Rupees₹ fifty thousand only) was disbursed to the petitioner on the

¶41

¶42

W.P.(C) No.690 of 2011

¶43

bonafide impression that he had paid the amount in advance at the time of start of the work.

¶44

The parties are at variance as to whether they were put on notice about the audit report and the liability determined by the third respondent. Such an exercise is imminent under Section 15 of the Local Fund Audit Act read with Rule 20 of the Local Fund Audit Rule. I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the parties either to rectify the anomalies or to file a detailed objection to Ext.P5 audit report.

¶45

I quash Ext.P6 demand notice and remit the matter to the third respondent to proceed further and take the proceedings to a logical conclusion. The petitioner as well as the second respondent shall appear before the third respondent on 21-10-2013. The liability shall be determined and duly communicated to the parties so that it can be effectively challenged in appeal to the District Court. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶46

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶47

V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶48

smm

¶49

W.P.(C) No.690 of 2011 3

C.H.Moidu v. the Kozhikode District Panchayat & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.H.Moidu v. the Kozhikode District Panchayat & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.C.Thomas Vs State Bank of Travancore

Georgy Joseph Vs Federal Bank Ltd.

Jancy Emmanuel Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank

B.Pushpangathan Vs State of Kerala

Mariamma Xavier Vs Mathew

T.L. Gopakumar Vs the Tahsildar