High Court Kerala High Court

P.K. Gee Varghese vs Baranikavu Block Panchayath on 26 May, 2009

Kerala High Court
P.K. Gee Varghese vs Baranikavu Block Panchayath on 26 May, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 13372 of 2009(N)


1. P.K. GEE VARGHESE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. BARANIKAVU BLOCK PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (HG),

3. THE DIRECTOR,

4. THE STATE OF KERALA,

5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

6. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,

7. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, KERALA.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.MADHU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :26/05/2009

 O R D E R
                          P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
                     -------------------------------------
                      W.P.(C)No.13372 of 2009
                     --------------------------------------
                         Dated 26th May, 2009

                               JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.T.Madhu, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, Sri.C.Rasheed, the learned counsel appearing for the first

respondent and Sri.Antony Mukkath, the learned Government Pleader

appearing for respondents 2 to 7.

2. Ext.P5 order passed by the Director of Local Fund Audit

surcharging the petitioner and Ext.P4 surcharge certificate issued by

the Director of Local Fund Audit are under challenge in this writ

petition. Ext.P5 order discloses that it has been issued under sub

section (1) of Section 16 of the Local Fund Audit Act, 1994. Sub

section (3) of Section 16 states that any person aggrieved by

disallowance, surcharge or charge made may, within one month after

he has received or been served with the decision of the auditor, apply

to the District Court, to set aside such disallowance, surcharge or

charge and the court, after taking such evidence as is necessary, may

confirm, modify or remit such disallowance, surcharge or charge.

3. Sub section (3) of Section 16 of the Local Fund Audit Act

confers on the petitioner the right to file an appeal challenging Ext.P5

in the District Court. The petitioner thus has an effective alternate

WP(C).No.13372/2009 2

remedy. Ext.P5 order is dated 23.3.2009. The period of one month

prescribed under sub section (3) of Section 16 of the Local Fund Audit

Act for filing an appeal has expired. However, having regard to the

fact that the petitioner has filed this writ petition in this Court, I am

inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the direction that in the

event of the petitioner filing an appeal before the competent District

Court within two weeks from today, the District Court shall entertain

the appeal as one filed within time and pass orders thereon in

accordance with law. In order to enable the petitioner to move the

appeal and seek interim orders from the District Court, the

proceedings if any initiated against the petitioner for recovery shall be

kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from today.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge

TKS