“10. On reading of Sec. 210 of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act it is clear that the defaulter can be prosecuted by the Secretary before a Magistrate only if the attachment and recovery of defaulted amount is impracticable by attachment of the movable properties of the defaulter. The evidence of PW1, the Secretary shows that the accused is the owner of the building No.VIII/117, 118 of ward No. 7 of Pozhutana Panchayat and he committed default in paying the building tax for the period 1999-2000, 2000-01. According to him the demand notice Ext.P1 was issued, which was accepted by the accused as per Ext. P1(a) and he has not paid the amount. Therefore Ext. P2 distraint warrant issued. PW2, the L.D.C. who executed the distraint warrant issued against the accused and report it as per Ext.P2(a). When PW1, the Secretary of the Panchayat is examined in chief examination itself stated that the attachment was not done because of the difficulty in selling the movable properties which are liable to be attached. In cross examination PW1 would show that the attachment was impracticable because the property available is worth more than the amount alleged to have been recovered. So reading of the evidence of PW1 itself would show that there was movable properties for the accused, this can be attached and this was not attached for the two reasons (1) difficulty in selling the attached property and other is the value of the property available for attachment is more than the amount due to the panchayat. The evidence of PW1 did not show the recovery of defaulted amount is through attachment and sale of the movable property of the defaulter is not practicable. But the evidence of PW2 is otherwise. According to him there was no movable properties for the defaulter. At the same time the evidence of PW2 would show that the accused owns a tile factory and there was movable properties available for attachment. The evidence of PW2 that no
