IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19221 of 2007(L)
1. SREEKRISHNA KUMAR,AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MUTHUKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,MUTHUKULAM
3. H.MOHAMMED KUNJU,'SHIYAS MANZIL'
4. RAMDAS P.R.,'PRATHYUSHA'
5. THE SECRETARY,SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
6. THE TAHSILDAR,KARTHIKAPPALLY.
7. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
For Respondent :SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :20/01/2009
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.19221 OF 2007
----------------------------
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the Convener of the project sponsored by
the lst respondent-Panchayat. Construction of a shopping complex
is the project. Petitioner is a Peon working in the 5th respondent-
Co-operative Society. The project is under the People’s Planning
Programme and therefore the petitioner and the 3rd respondent
were selected as Convener and Chairman of the beneficiary
committee. It is submitted by the petitioner that due to the
inordinate delay on the part of the Panchayat from getting sanction
from the Assistant Executive Engineer and also due to the
mismanagement of the 4th respondent-Contractor, the work could
not be completed. Therefore, the petitioner issued Ext.P2 notice
stating the reasons for inability to complete the work.
Subsequently, the Local Fund Audit Department conducted an
audit and reported that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.1 lakh
-2-
W.P.(C).No.19221/2007
towards the loss caused to the Government. Ext.P3 is the
surcharge certificate. Pursuant to Ext.P3, Ext.P4 demand notice
was issued, followed by Ext.P5 prohibitory order issued by the
6th respondent directing the 5th respondent to recover Rs.1,500/-
each per month from the petitioner’s salary from May, 2007
onwards.
2. The prayer made in this writ petition is to quash
Exts.P3, P4 and P5 and to direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider
the matter, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner. Petitioner also submitted that he was not given any
opportunity to represent his case before issuing Ext.P3 surcharge
certificate.
3. The order issuing Ext.P3 surcharge certificate is an
appealable order. The appeal lies to the District Court. But in
view of the fact that Exts.P3, P4 and P5 are challenged before
this Court, the petitioner could not file an appeal in time. Since
the petitioner has got a statutory remedy by way of appeal, I
-3-
W.P.(C).No.19221/2007
direct him to file an appeal before the District Court within three
weeks from today. The delay in filing the appeal was occasioned
due to the fact that the petitioner has prosecuted this writ petition.
Therefore, the District Court is directed to condone the delay,
register the appeal to file and consider and pass orders on
merits within a period of six months from today. Recovery
proceedings pursuant to Exts.P3, P4 and P5 shall be kept in
abeyance, till the disposal of the appeal.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.
kcv.
The word “appeal” wherever it occurs in paragraph 3 of the judgment dated
20/01/2009 in WP(C) No.19221/2007 is corrected as “application”as per order
dated 24/02/2009 in I.A No. 2342/2009.
Registrar(Judicial)