Loading...

K.Prakash vs The District Collector on 9 September, 2009

Kerala High Court
K.Prakash vs The District Collector on 9 September, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23101 of 2009(G)


1. K.PRAKASH, GEETHA BHAVAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR, PEERMADE.

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR)

4. THE SECRETARY, KOKKAYAR GRAMA

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.V.BOSE

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.JAJU BABU

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :09/09/2009

 O R D E R
                       C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
                       ---------------------------------
                       WP(C) NO. 23101 OF 2009
                        -----------------------------------
              Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009


                              J U D G M E N T

1. The petitioner is the retired secretary of 4th respondent/Grama

panchayat. He is aggrieved by Ext.P7 to P9 notices issued for realisation

of amounts alleged to have been fixed as his personal liability. The liability

was fixed upon the petitioner based on Ext.R4(a) report of the Local Fund

Audit authorities, pursuant to issuance of Ext.R4(b) show cause notice.

The basis of the allegation is that, the petitioner had failed to collect the

entire amount of licence fee for the whole year due from a contractor in

favour of whom licence for collection of sand was confirmed. But it is

evident that inspite of payment of two instalments of the licence fee, the

contractor could not collect any sand due to order of injunction obtained by

some third person, and the panchayat ultimately took a resolution as

evidenced by Ext.P4 to the effect of refunding the instalments already paid

by the contractor. However it is pointed out that, in a Writ Petition filed by

the contractor, the Panchayat undertook to make refund of the amount

already paid.

2. In view of the above situation, the liability fixed on the

WPC NO.23101/2009 2

petitioner is not sustainable. Consequently recovery steps initiated for

realisation of the amount is unsustainable.

Under the above circumstance, the Writ Petition is allowed quashing

Ext.P7 to P9 and all steps of recovery initiated pursuant to the said notices.

C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE

dnc

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information