Allowed

Jaya Murali v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Nov 2016WP(C)/27446/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Panchayat's resolution attempting to recover funds allegedly spent by a former Chairperson of a Community Development Society. The Court held the recovery was barred by the three-year limitation period under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that no recovery shall be effected as proposed in the Panchayat resolution.

Jaya Murali Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 27446 of 2010 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JAYA MURALI, AGED 42, W/O.MURALI, RADHANILAYAM, MANIVAYAL, THOVARIMALA P.O., SULTHAN BATHERI, WAYANAD - 673 592.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. NENMENI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY SECRETARY, KOYILADI, SRI.A.P.THOMAS, NENMENI P.O., PIN - 673 59, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶12

3. MEMBER SECRETARY (CHARGE OFFICER) KUDUMBASREE CDS, SRI.P.K.SATHEESAN, NENMENI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOYILADI, NENMENI P.O., PIN - 673 592.

¶13

4. DEVASSIA, S/O.POULOSE, CHEMPALA, KAVUMANNAM P.O.-673 121., VYTHIRI, WAYANAD.

¶14

5. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MOOLAMKAVU BRANCH, SULTHAN BATHERY, PIN - 673 592. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINEETHA HARIRAJ R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.ANEESH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

WP(C).No. 27446 of 2010 (E)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIO	NERS' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT	P1 : TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF CDS OF 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT ON 25.5.06.
EXHIBIT	P2 : TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF CDS OF 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT ON 18.7.2006.
EXHIBIT	P3 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 28.1.2010.
EXHIBIT	P4 : TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P5 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON 3.8.2010.
EXHIBIT	P6 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 21.8.2010.
EXHIBIT	P7 : TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.1/10 DATED 21.8.2010 TAKEN BY 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT	P8 : TRUE COPY OF DISSENT NOTE RECORDED BY 9 PANCHAYAT MEMBERS.
RESPOND	ENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.
	//TRUE COPY//
	P.S. TO JUDGE

¶20

mbr/

¶21

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶22

--------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.27446 of 2010-E

¶23

¶24

Dated, this the 25^th day of November, 2016

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioner is aggrieved with the decision taken at Exhibit P7 by the Council of the Panchayat, deciding to recover Rs.46,798/- received as 1% commission by the Community Development Society [for brevity “CDS”] of the respondent-Panchayat when the petitioner was elected Chairperson of such Society.

¶27

The CDS is a Society formed under the Kudumbasree

¶28

Project, implemented in the State of Kerala. As per a scheme for disbursement of loan, to the members of the Kudumbasree, the CDS considers the application for loans, which are disbursed by the 5^th respondent-Bank. The CDS has also the additional responsibility of refunding these amounts after collection from the respective loanees. On deposit of the amount with interest to the 5^th respondent, the 5^th respondent-Bank grants 1% commission to the CDS. The amounts sought to be remitted is said to be the shortfall that was not deposited by the Chairperson to the account of CDS.

¶29

WP(C) No.27446 of 2010 - 2 -

¶30

The petitioner, admittedly, was the Chairperson of

¶31

the CDS between 25.05.2002 to May, 2007; on which day she is said to have resigned from office. The petitioner's specific contention based on Exhibits P1 and P2 was that the resolution of the CDS itself would show that the then President and Development Standing Committee Chairman, who were also members in the CDS, had withdrawn amounts from the 1% incentive paid by the Bank and had not presented accounts for the same. Later long after, the petitioner was asked to make good the amounts by a notice dated 28.01.2010 [Exhibit P3], to which the petitioner filed detailed objections, at Exhibit P4. Obviously the objections were not considered and Exhibit P7 decision was taken.

¶32

This Court need not look at the contention of the petitioner that the amounts were in fact taken by other members of the committee, since the recovery has been attempted without any computation of loss, fixation of liability and outside the limitation period. Necessarily when there is a loss caused, it is incumbent upon the authorities to compute the loss caused and the liability

¶33

WP(C) No.27446 of 2010 - 3 -

¶34

fixed; for which notice has to be issued. Further, any recovery to be made by a Panchayat has to be within the limitation period as provided under Section 243 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The limitation period provided, as in the suits for recovery of money, is three years. The recovery proposed as per Exhibit P7 being hit by limitation, there shall be a declaration that no recovery shall be effected as proposed in Exhibit P7.

¶35

The writ petition is allowed. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.

¶36

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶37

vku/-

¶38

[ true copy ]

Jaya Murali v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaya Murali v. State of Kerala

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

Dr. M Sreekumar Vs the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

N.P.Jayan and Others Vs Kottayam Municipality and Others

Joffy.T.O. Vs State of Kerala and Others

Mahatma Gandhi University Vs Principal, Rajagiri College of Social Sciences

S.Arumugham Vs Municipal Council Ktym,Rep: by Chairman

Geetha M. Vs the Kulukallur Grama Panchayath