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