T P SATHEESAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE questions which have been raised in these writ petitions are similar and therefore, they have been heard together. They are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE earliest writ petition, which purported to challenge the validity of Section 9 (2) of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act (herein after referred to as the Audit Act), have been treated as the leading case. Certain questions of law have been raised in all the other writ petitions. For the sake of convenience, such questions have been considered together.

(3.) THE petitioner in O. P. No. 6979/2000 was the Secretary of the Kalpetta Municipality. While working as the Secretary of North Paravoor Municipality, he was transferred to Kalpetta Municipality by order dated 24. 2. 1999. He joined duty at Kalpetta on 6. 3. 1999. He contends that, when he joined the Kalpetta Municipality, the accounts of the previous financial years were yet to be submitted for audit. The accounts from 1994 1995 were remaining in default. Without completing the accounts of financial years 1994-1995, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98, accounting of the financial year 1998-99 could not be begun.