IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1870 of 2009(V)
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT
... Petitioner
2. DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUNDS AUDIT
Vs
1. P.D.RAVEENDRAN, PATHIYIL HOUSE
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY,KARUNAPURAM GRAMA PACHAYATH.
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :19/01/2009
O R D E R
K.P. Balachandran, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C)No.1870 of 2009 V
--------------------------
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Government Pleader
Sri.Mohammed Fazil.
2. This writ petition is filed assailing
Exhibit P7 judgment of the District Judge,
Thodupuzha in O.P.(Local Fund) No.16/07. By Exhibit
P7 judgment, the court below allowed the
application filed by the first respondent under
Section 20(13) of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act
to set aside the Surcharge Certificate Nos.LF
11295/Spl.cell (Sc 2) 2005 dated 7.11.2006 and LF
11295/Spl.cell (Sc 2) 2005 dated 7.11.2006 for the
reason that the claims made therein are hopelessly
barred by limitation in view of the proviso to sub
section (9) to Section 215 of the Kerala Panchayat
Raj Act, which mandates that no surcharge shall be
made after a period of four years from the date on
which the expenditure in question was incurred.
WPC 1870/09 2
3. Learned Government Pleader has no dispute
that the claim has been made after a period of four
years from the date the expenditure in question was
incurred. But, his contention is that by reason of
Section 22 of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act,
1994, any provision contained in any other law for
the time being in force relating to the audit of
accounts of a local authority or a local fund
included in the schedule is repugnant to the
provisions of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, the
latter shall prevail and the former to be avoided
to the extent of such repugnancy. All the same,
Government Pleader submits that under the Kerala
Local Fund Audit Act no period is prescribed for
advancing a claim for surcharge and therefore, the
provisions of the proviso to sub section (9) to
Section 215 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act is
inconsistent with the provisions of the Kerala
Local Fund Audit Act, 1994 and hence, there won’t
be any limitation.
WPC 1870/09 3
4. The argument advanced is unsound. When no
provision is made in the Kerala Local Fund Audit
Act, there is no question of any other provision in
that behalf in any other statute being repugnant.
The submission that there is no provision made in
the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act limiting the time
does not enable the claim being advanced at any
time. The omission to provide any time limit in
the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act means that the
provision contained in the proviso to Section 215
of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act is not inconsistent
with the provisions of the Kerala Local Fund Audit
Act. There is no merit in this writ petition.
This writ petition is, hence, dismissed.
19th January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
tkv