SATYANARAYANA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Ex-Sarpanch of Annavarappadu Village Panchayat. He was Sarpanch from 21-11-1959 to 1-7-1964. During his tenure of office, the village Panchayat undertook two works. The first work relates to the construction of Elementary School for which the cost was estimated at Rs. 16, 600/- and the second work relates to the special repairs to the road called Mukkamala-Vadali road for which the cost was estimated at Rs. 25,000/-. Both these works were completed. For the first work, the Panchayat incurred a sum of Rs. 14,221-61 ps. and for the second work a sum of Rs. 25,864/-. Later he was succeeded by one Subbanna as Sarpanch. The Engineering Supervisor, Peravali Panchayat Samithi was deputed to value both the works. The said Engineering Supervisor valued the school construction at Rs. 8,085-75 ps. and the road construction at Rs. 24,400/-. On the basis of the valuation given by the Engineering Superivsor in bis report dated 12-5-65, the second respondent (Asst. Examiner of Local Fund Accounts, Eluru, West Godavary District) issued the two surcharge certificates dated 24-1-1977. The first surcharge certificate mentions the surcharge at Rs. 6,135-86 ps. while the second one mentions at Rs. 1,464-31 ps. Aggrieved with the surcharge shown in the two surcharge certificates issued by the second respondent, the petitioner preferred appeals to the Government. The Government called for reports from the Director, Local Fund Audit, Hyderabad and the Collector (Panchayat Wing) West Godavari. They submitted their respective reports. Relying upon those reports, the Government dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioner. Hence the petitioner has to approach this Cou t.

(2.) Sri Satyanarayana Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Surcharge Certificates were time-barred since the amounts surcharged become due when the Auditor certified and as per Section 139 of the A P. Gram Panchayats Act, the claim based on surchage certificates became time-barred. The learned Government Pleader on the other band contends that the period of limitation starts from the date when the Surcharge Certificates were issued and because of the intervention of the appeals preferred by the petitioner to the Government, proceedings to recover the surcharge amounts could not be taken up and hence the claim is still alive. In support of his contention he also relied upon a decision of this Court in Ithepalli Panchayat vs. Guruswamy Chetty wherein Mr. Justice Madhava Reddy, while dealing with the question of limitation, has held :

(3.) The learned counsel for the petition, r contends that the surcharge certificates are contrary to Rule 5(1) of the Rules, inasmuch as the surcharge certificates do not show that specific items of expenditure were disallowed by the auditor. I find force in this contention. A careful reading of the provisions of Rule 5(1), makes it abundantly clear that auditor is given the right to disallow any item contrary to law and surcharge the same on the person making or authorising the making of the legel payments. But, before he disallows any item, he is required under Rule 5 (2) to state in writing the reasons for his decision in respect of every disallwance, surcharge or charge. The 2nd respondent has merely shown the total expenditure incurred by the Panchayat, and the total value of the work done and then he has shown the difference as the surcharge. The auditor has not disallowed any particular item of expenditure though the auditor has got the right to disallow any item, if it is contrary to law. If the auditor disallowed any items contrary to law, he is entitled to surcharge the same. Unless and until the auditor disallows any item in writing giving the reasons in respect of every disallowance under rule 5 (2) he cannot surcharge the same. In the absence of disallowing particular item for reasons to be recorded, it is not possible for the petitioner to know which item of expenditure was 01 allowed and for what reasons. These particulars should be specifically stated uncer rule 5 (2) in the surcharge certificates. But the surcharge certificates are silent over these particulars. Hence the 2nd respondent's contention that there is excess expenditure to the extent mentioned in the surcharge certificates, cannot be accepted. Hence the surcharge certificates cannot be treated to have complied with rule 5(1) and (2) of the rules.