VIJAYAKRISHNAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext. P3 surchage certificate, issued for Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was the Secretary of the 4th respondent Grama Panchayath during the year 2001. In the Local fund Audit Report, it was reported that without technical sanction, petitioner had disbursed mobilisation advance of Rs. 5,000/- to the convenor of a Beneficiary Committee. On receipt of the Audit report, Ext. P1 surcharge notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.05.2007. On receipt of the notice, petitioner filed Ext. P2 reply, contending that the expenditure objected to was incurred on 11.08.2000 and that in view of the provisions contained in S. 215 of Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, the claim is barred by limitation. Overruling the objection, Ext. P3 surcharge certificate was issued. It was at that stage this writ petition was filed. In the Writ Petition the main contention raised is that the claim is barred by limitation in view of the proviso to S. 215 (9) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government the contention of the petitioner that the claim is barred has been answered relying on S. 22 of the Local Fund Audit Act, 1994.