Partly allowed

Moses N.A. v. State of Kerala,Rep.by Its Secretary

Kerala HC8 Aug 2016WP(C)/14762/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a surcharge certificate issued under the Kerala Local Fund Audit Rules, 1994. The court held that while it normally should not entertain surcharge challenges, the failure to consider the petitioner's prior explanation necessitated setting aside the certificate for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

The surcharge certificate issued under Form XA was set aside. The Second Respondent is directed to reconsider the matter within three months.

Moses N.A. Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by Its Secretary — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/17TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 14762 of 2007 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

N.A.MOSES, S/O.ANTONY, AGED 60 YEARS, KOKKAD HOUSE, THATAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SAVAD R3 BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

¶14

SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SMT.N.SANTHA

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 14762 of 2007 (G)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶20

P1:	COPY OF THE SURCHARGE NOTICE ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R2 VIDE REFERENCE NUMBER LF 21052/SPL. CELL (SC.2)/04, DT 27/3/2006.
P2:	COPY OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN TO THE R2 BY THIS PETITIONER.
P3:	COPY OF THE SURCHARGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R2.
P4:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 DT 2/2/2007.
P4(A):	COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶26

¶27

W.P.(C).No.14762/2007

¶28

¶29

Dated this the 8^th day of August, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner was served with Ext.P1 surcharge notice dated

¶32

27.3.2006 under sub-rule 3 of Rule 20 of the Kerala Local Fund Audit

¶33

Rules, 1994. Thereupon, the petitioner raised an objection as per

¶34

Ext.P2 dated 24.5.2006 stating that no liability can be fixed upon him.

¶35

The above audit objection is based on an audit report of the accounts

¶36

of the Pathanamthitta District Panchayat for the year 1998-99. As per

¶37

the audit report, the Pathanamthitta District Panchayat has sustained

¶38

a loss of Rs.50,000/- due to excess or illegal payment made by the

¶39

petitioner. The petitioner's case is that the fund was released to a

¶40

committee which was arranged by the District Panchayat and before

¶41

the completion of the work, he was transferred and therefore, he is

¶42

not responsible for the delay caused in implementation of the works

¶43

W.P.(C).No.14762/2007

¶44

involved.

¶45

It is seen that an Ext.P3 surcharge certificate has been

¶46

issued under Form XA. Normally, this Court ought not have entertained a challenge regarding surcharge as the petitioner's

¶47

remedy is before the civil court. However, considering the fact the writ petition is filed in the year 2007 and also taking note of the fact

¶48

that Ext.P2 has not been considered before issuance of surcharge certificate, this Court is of the view that Ext.P3 has to be set aside.

¶49

The second respondent shall reconsider the matter after adverting to

¶50

the objection raised by the petitioner in Ext.P2 and also after hearing

¶51

the Secretary of the District Panchayat within a period of three

¶52

months. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶55

Moses N.A. v. State of Kerala,Rep.by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moses N.A. v. State of Kerala,Rep.by Its Secretary

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

M/S.Aghil Shipping Agencies Vs Gouri S Nair

V.A. Sasi Vs Gopalakrishna Bhat I.A.S.

Prabhakaran Vs C.J.Paulson

M/S.East Coast Construction Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

K.Sasikala Vs State of Kerala

The Alappuzha District Co-Operative Vs the State Information Commission