Dismissed

T.P.Balan v. the Director of Local Fund Audit & Other

Kerala HC18 Mar 2016WA/345/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ appeal. The Single Judge had rejected the petition challenging a surcharge demand, noting the petitioner could have approached the District Court regarding the audit report. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's factual findings on the defect in the reply and rejecting the limitation plea.

What the court decided

AI extract

T.P.Balan Vs the Director of Local Fund Audit & Other — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/28TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WA. No.345 of 2010 ( ) IN WP(C). No.19521/2006

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.19521/2006 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 15-07-2009.

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

T.P.BALAN, (RETIRED SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY OF PANCHAYAT), PILASSERY HOUSE, P.O.CHELAMBRA, MALAPPURAM DIST.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.BOSE

¶10

SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶13

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶14

3. THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, PAZHUTHANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, POST POZHUTHANA, WAYANAD.

¶15

4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, ARREAR COLLECTION, TALUK OFFICE, THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

R1, R2 &R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS R3 BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY BY ADV.SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNA MENON

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

KRJ

¶19

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A No.345 of 2010

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2016

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Ashok Bhushan, CJ

¶24

Heard.

¶25

This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 15.7.2009 in W.P(C) No.19521 of 2006. The appellant had filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order dated 20.12.2004 demanding surcharge from the petitioner and Ext.P5 demands prior to the attachment of land under the Revenue Recovery Act. Both Exts.P4 and P5 were issued on the basis of audit report dated 28.6.2004. Ext.P2 is the surcharge notice issued by the Director of Local Fund Audit, Department of Kerala to the petitioner demanding the amount of ₹69,171/-. Petitioner immediately filed Ext.P3 reply on 7.9.2004.

¶26

The learned Single Judge heard the petitioner and held that

¶27

the petitioner had option to approach the District Court to challenge

¶28

-:2:-

¶29

WA341/10

¶30

the demand which he had not chosen. The reply filed by the petitioner was also found not specifically explaining the irregularities noticed in paragraphs 36, 37 and 38 of the audit report. Petitioner

¶31

had not chosen to deposit the amount under protest.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the proceedings for recovery were initiated beyond the period of limitation and the petitioner had explained the irregularities. He further submit that the petitioner did not get an opportunity to challenge the audit report.

¶33

We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶34

In so far as the submission pertaining to limitation is concerned, the irregularities on the liability were found only when the audit report came to light. Immediately, the notice was issued to the petitioner demanding the surcharge well within the limitation. The submission of the appellant on the ground of limitation is thus

WA341/10

-:3:-

misconceived.

In so far as the reply of the petitioner which was found not explaining the audit objections, the observation made by the learned Single Judge was on the facts of the case. The petitioner had remedy to challenge the surcharge notice before the District Court which he did not chose to do so. The factual issues sought to be raised before us cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶39

We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in closing the writ petition. Writ appeal is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶43

krj.18/3/16

T.P.Balan v. the Director of Local Fund Audit & Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

T.P.Balan v. the Director of Local Fund Audit & Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.K.Santhosh Vs Syamala.S

Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs P.Honniah and Others

Y.G.Zacharia Vs the Edathua Grama Panchayath

Zeena B. Vs P.Mohanendra Kurup

Nallasivam Pillai Vs Dandapani Boyan

K.N. Thankappan Vs St. Bazil Industries