State of Kerala v. V.T. Kurian

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **TUESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 5603 OF 2009** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.2.2008 IN OP (LF) 57/2006 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA** ## **PETITIONERS/R1&R2:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUNDS AUDIT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JIMMY GEORGE ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & R3:** 1 V.T.KURIAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT VATTACHAL HOUSE, PERUMPANACHY PO, MADAPPILLY VILLAGE,CHANGANASSERY TALUK. 2 THE SECRETARY, VANDIPERIYAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. BY ADVS. K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) S.AMBILY LAKSHMI ANIL ADV.JOICE GEORGE FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.03.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C) NOS.7662/2009, 7941/2009, 3067/2008, 7684/2008, 11155/2009, 14096/2009 AND 34401/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 7662 OF 2009** ## **PETITIONERS/R1&R2:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUNDS AUDIT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JIMMY GEORGE ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & R3:** 1 P.K.SREEDHARAN NAMBOOTHIRI S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, SREE HOUSE,, CHAKKAKKANAM P.O., NEDUMKANDAM,, KALKOOTNTHAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK,, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2 THE SECRETARY KAMAKSHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, IDUKKI. BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH FOR R2 SRI.PAUL C THOMAS SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT FOR R1 SRI.C.S.YESUDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.03.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C) NOS.5603/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **TUESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 7941 OF 2009** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 3.3.2008 IN OP(LF)** **12/2007 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA PETITIONERS/R1 & R2:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JIMMY GEORGE ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & R3:** 1 P.D.RAVEENDRAN PATHIYIL HOUSE, MELAMPARA.P.O.,, BHARANANGANAM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2 THE SECRETARY KARUNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.BOSE FOR R2 SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.03.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C) NOS.5603/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 4 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 11155 OF 2009** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.2.2008 IN OP(LF) 7/2007 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA PETITIONERS/R1 & R2:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPREENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,, IDUKKI. 2 DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUNDS AUDIT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JIMMY GEORGE ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & R3:** 1 V.S.MUHAMMED, S/O.SYED MUHAMMED, VANIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, THADIYAMPADU,, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VANIYAPURAYIL HOUSE,, MUTHALAKODAM.P.O., THODUPUZHA. 2 SECRETARY NEDUMKANDAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.BOSE FOR R1 SRI.S.DILEEP KALLAR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.03.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C) NOS.5603/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 5 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 3067 OF 2008** ## **PETITIONER/S:** T.C.THEYYAN, THRIKKAIKUNNU VEEDU, VANDOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO SRI.M.N.MANOJ ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS THRISSUR. BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JIMMY GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C) NOS.5603/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 6 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 7684 OF 2008** ## **PETITIONER/S:** P.N.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, PUTHENTHARAYIL HOUSE, SANYASIODE P.O., KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 SECRETARY, KOKKAYAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, DISTRICT OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. 3 DEPUTY THAHASILDAR (R.R) UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JIMMY GEORGE K.JAJU BABU (SR.) FOR R1 T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.03.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C) NOS.5603/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 7 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **TUESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 14096 OF 2009** ## **PETITIONER/S:** K.G.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 61 YEARS, RETIRED PANCHAYATH SECRETARY,, KOMBARAPARAMBIL HOUSE,, P.O. KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO SRI.DEVAN K.MENON SRIA.G.UNNIKRISHNAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, THIRUVNANATHAPURAM. 3 DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 5 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, THRISSUR -20. 6 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** BY ADVS.SRI.JIMMY GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.03.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C) NOS.5603/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 9 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **TUESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 34401 OF 2009** ## **PETITIONER/S:** P.N. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.NARAYANAN PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, SANYASIODE P.O.,, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 SECRETARY, KOKKAYAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH KOKKAYAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT DISTRICT OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. 3 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR R.R. NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JIMMY GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.03.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C) NOS.5603/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 10 ## J U D G M E N T [WP(C) Nos.5603/2009, 7662/2009, 7941/2009, 3067/2008, 7684/2008, 11155/2009, 14096/2009 & 34401/2009] 1. The main question raised in all these writ petitions is whether there is any limitation in initiating surcharge proceedings under the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994. WP(C) No.5603/2009 2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the District Judge rendered in OP No.57/2006 preferred by the first respondent by invoking the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994 (hereinafter called “the Act”, for short). 3. First respondent was working as the Secretary of Vandiperiyar Grama Panchayat from 25.05.1998 to 31.08.1998. The audit of the aforementioned Grama Panchayat for the year 199798 i.e. up to 30.06.1998 was conducted from 14.12.1999 to 22.12.1999 and it was found that a **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 11 loss of Rs.4,33,834/- was caused to the Panchayat on account of illegal payment made by the first respondent. The auditor conducted the audit as per the provisions of the aforementioned Act. Paragraphs 42(3), 42(4) and 42(6) of the audit report pertained to recovery of the aforementioned loss against the first respondent and surcharge notice dated 05.08.2004, Ext.R1(a), was served upon the first respondent which was duly replied vide Ext.R1(b) dated 5.10.2004. A revised surcharge notice dated 29.4.2005 was served upon the first respondent, which also was replied vide Ext.R1(d) dated 28.7.2005, resultantly an objection, Ext.R1(e), to the audit was also submitted. Dissatisfied with the replies, the audit officer issued a surcharge certificate as per the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Act against which the first respondent preferred OP No.57/2006 before the District Judge. The grounds taken before the District Judge were that action was beyond the period of limitation. First respondent held charge only for a limited period, **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 12 thus was not responsible for the alleged loss. The first respondent worked only for thirty seven (37) days in the Grama Panchayat, later on was transferred to Kattappana Grama Panchayat. He retired on 31.5.2004 and thereafter the aforementioned proceedings as noticed above were initiated. 4. A detailed explanation was given with regard to the objections of the audit, but, was not considered in the correct perspective. Since the parties were at variance, the District Judge framed the following issues in OP No.57/2006 to lead evidence: (1) Whether surcharge certificate dated 24.01.2006 is liable to be set aside? (2) Relief and Order as to the costs? In respect of the aforementioned issues, the first respondent examined himself as PW1 to substantiate that all steps were taken to implement all the schemes of sewing machine, television sets etc., but did not produce any documents to prove nor any **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** **==> picture [13 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** application was submitted for production of the documents kept and maintained in the Panchayat. Learned District Judge by noticing the provisions of sub-Section (9) of Section 215 of the Kerala Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which prevented the Panchayat to take steps of recovery of the amount under the provisions of the aforementioned Act beyond the period of four years, to be barred by law of limitation, allowed the petition. However, on a point of recovery, the findings were rendered against the first respondent. 5. The first respondent preferred WP(C) No.24427/2009 by challenging the aforementioned adverse findings. This Court vide judgment dated 27.08.2009 held that the writ petition against the adverse findings of the District Judge could not have been filed by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, but left open to the first respondent to canvass the grievance against the findings rendered against him in the writ petition purported to have been filed by the Government. **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** **==> picture [13 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 6. Adv.Jimmy George, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the judgment of the District Judge is not sustainable as it is based upon the applicability of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayati Raj Act as no steps were taken for recovery of the amount under sub-Section (9) of Section 215 thereof, while it was under a complete code itself, i.e. the Local Fund Audit Act, 1994 and the Rules framed thereunder. Section 22 of the Act provides exclusion of the applicability of all other Acts. When steps under the 1994 Act were taken the provisions of the other Acts are excluded from purview for the purpose of adjudication. The aforementioned controversy raised in various writ petitions has already been put to rest by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Kerala and Another v. P.D.Raveendran and Another [2020 (4) KHC 201] , wherein by referring to the provisions of both the Acts, it has been held that the Local Fund Audit Act, 1994 is a special Act and therefore, the action taken under the Act **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** **==> picture [13 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** cannot be held to be barred by the law of limitation. 7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that various objections submitted by the first respondent were not considered by the District Judge and therefore, the assertions have been made in this Court in view of the liberty granted in the judgment dated 27.8.2009 in WP(C) No.24427/2009 preferred by the first respondent against the adverse findings of the District Judge with regard to non-leading of evidence pertaining to the allegations of non-implementation of the schemes. The first respondent produced certain documents, but were not adverted to. Once the findings in the connected matter were held in favour of the co-employee, it would barred by law akin to the doctrine of res judicata as per the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of the aforementioned contention, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Premier Tyres Limited v. Kerala **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** **==> picture [13 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** State Road Transport [1993(2) KLT 130], and in Rajesh Babu v. State of Kerala [2013(4) KLT 147], paragraph No.18 thereof reads thus: “18. The petitioner challenged the order of detention at the pre-execution stage. That challenge did not succeed. He has challenged it again on some other grounds. The petitioner states that he did not get copies of the order of detention and the grounds of detention at the time of filing the earlier Writ Petition and as he got it now he could challenge again the order of detention. It is well settled that general principles of res judicata would apply to proceedings under Article 226 as well. (See Ayichutty v. State of Kerala (2002 (2) KLT 125) and Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v State of Maharashtra and others ((1990) 2 SCC 715) . In the present case, the constitutionality of any provision of law is not under challenge since the petitioner did not press relief No.v in the Writ Petition. If so, the petitioner is barred by the principles of res judicata from raising the same contentions and praying for the same reliefs which were rejected earlier. The contention of the petitioner that since he got copies of the order of detention and the grounds of detention only later, he could challenge the same even before the execution in spite of the fact that his earlier Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court, is also not liable to be accepted. The petitioner ## **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** **==> picture [13 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** would be barred by the principles of constructive res judicata in that regard.” 8. It was next contended that even as per Rule 20(11) of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Rules, surcharge certificate has to be issued within a period of four months, before the amendment caused in the Act with effect from 28.09.2006, in case the certificate could not be issued, steps for recovery of the amount either under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act or under the other provisions cannot be initiated. In support of the contention, the first respondent relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.S.Gadgil v. Lal and Company [1994 ICO 1252] , wherein by looking into the provisions of Section 34 of the then Income tax Act, income tax officer was empowered to initiate steps to recover the loss with regard to certain period of the same assessment, as it could not be taken into consideration by the limited provisions, which were not in vogue and applicable. **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** **==> picture [13 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 9. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the paper books. 10. Surcharge certificate has been defined under the provisions of the Act, under Section 2(l), which reads thus: “2(l) : "surcharge" means an amount for which the auditor, in exercise of the powers vested in him under this Act, makes a person liable for loss waste, misapplication or misappropriation of any money or other property belonging to any local authority.” Section 16 of the aforementioned Act empowers the auditor to surcharge illegal payments and loss caused by negligence or misconduct. Section 16 reads as under: “16. Auditor to surcharge illegal payments and loss caused by negligence or misconduct:- (1) The auditor may disallow any item which appears to him to be contrary to law and surcharge the same against the person making or person or body of persons authorising the making of the illegal payment and may charge against any person responsible therefore, the amount of any deficiency or loss caused by the negligence or misconduct of that person or any sum received which ought to have been, but has not been brought into account by that person and shall, in every **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** **==> picture [13 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** such case, certify the amount due from such person. (2) The auditor shall state, in writing , the reasons for his decision in respect of every disallowance, surcharge or charge and shall communicate the same by registered post to the person against whom it is made together with an extract of the relevant objection in the audit report. (3) Any person aggrieved by disallowance, surcharge or charge made may, within one month after he has received or been served with the decision of the auditor, apply to the District Court, to set aside such disallowance, surcharge or charge and the court, after taking such evidence as is necessary, may confirm, modify or remit such disallowance, surcharge or charge. (4) Every sum certified to be due from any person by the auditor under this Act shall be paid by such person to the Executive authority within one month after the intimation to him of the decision of the Director unless, within that time, such person has filed an application before the District Court against the decision under subsection (3) and such amount ,if not so paid, or such amount as the District Court shall declare to be due, shall be recoverable under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (15 of 1968) for the time being in force, as if it were an arrear of public revenue due on land.” Section 22 of the Local Fund Audit Act deals with overriding effect of other provisions of law. The same reads as under: **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 20 “22. Act to override other enactment :- If 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 this Act, the latter shall prevail and the former be void to the extent of such repugnancy.” Rule 20(11) of the Rules, relied on by the first respondent reads thus: “20. Procedure for charge /surcharge proceedings xxx xxx xxx (11)The charge/surcharge certificate shall be served on the persons responsible within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the charge/surcharge notice by such person.” 11. It was submitted, that the Division Bench of this Court did not refer to the provisions of sub-Rule (11) of Rule 20 of the Local Fund Audit Rules and therefore, could not be treated as a judgment in 'rem' for adjudication of the lis in hand. District Judge while entertaining OP No.57/2006 preferred by the first respondent found that the action initiated for recovery of the amount in view of the issuance of surcharge certificate was barred in view of the provisions **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** **==> picture [13 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** of sub-Section (9) of Section 215 of the Kerala Panchayati Raj Act, which reads as under: “ 215. Accounts and audit:- xxx xxx xxx (9) The auditors shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the person concerned to explain his case, disallow every item of expenditure incurred contrary to law and surcharge the same on the person incurring, or authorising the incurring of, such expenditure and may charge against any person responsible therefore the amount of any deficiency, loss or unprofitable outlay occasioned by the negligence or misconduct of that person or of any sum which ought to have been but is not brought into account by that person and shall, in every such case certify the amount due from such person : Provident that no surcharge under this sub-section shall be made after a period of four years from the date on which the expenditure in question was incurred. Explanation. - It shall not be open to any person whose negligence or misconduct has caused or contributed to any such deficiency or loss, to contend that notwithstanding his negligence or misconduct the deficiency or loss would not have occurred, but for the negligence or misconduct of some other person.” 12. On perusal of the same, it is discerned that steps for recovery to be taken by the local authority/body can be initiated only within a period of four years. However, while dealing, it **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** **==> picture [13 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** did not notice the provisions of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act and the Rules framed thereunder, particularly, Section 22 (supra), which has taken out applicability of the other provisions in case steps have been taken for recovery of the amount. This is precisely what has been held by the Division Bench of this Court. Paragraph Nos. 23 to 28 of the judgment in P.D.Raveendran (supra) read as under: “23. Whether Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994, is a special law and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, is a general law, it is worthwhile to consider the principles laid down in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J. Bahadur and Others [AIR 1980 SC 2181], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the question as to which of the two laws i.e. the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the ID Act) and the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (the LIC Act), was a special law. Having regard to the doctrine of generalia specialibus non derogant (general provisions will not abrogate special provisions), it was submitted that an employee of the LIC cannot invoke the provisions of the ID Act in his complaint, and the matter would have to be decided, in accordance with the LIC Act. The Court observed that the LIC Act was “special” as regards nationalisation of the life insurance business. But however, the disputes between employer and employee had to be dealt with under the ID Act which was a special **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 23 law for resolving such disputes and if a dispute arose between employer and employee in the Life Insurance Corporation, the LIC Act must be treated as "general law" and the ID Act should be treated as "special law." The Court thus observed:-- "In determining whether a statute is a special or a general one, the focus must be on the principal subject matter plus the particular perspective. For certain purposes, an Act may be general and for certain other purposes it may be special and we cannot blur distinctions when dealing with finer points of law. " (p. 11 27) (of SCR): (at p. 2200 of AIR).” 24. There is a specific provision - Section 22, in the Local Fund Audit Act, 1994. On the aspect of overriding effect on other enactment, let us consider a few more decisions. (i) In Shri Ram Narain v. The Simla Banking and Industrial Co. Ltd. , (AIR 1956 SC 614), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the provisions contained in the Banking Companies Act, 1949 and the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951. Both the enactments contained provisions giving overriding effect to the provisions of the enactment over any other law. This Court observed as follows: "Each enactment being a Special Act, the ordinary principle that a special law overrides a general law does not afford any clear solution in this case." "It is, therefore, desirable to determine the overriding effect of one or the other of the relevant provisions in these two Acts, in a ## **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 24 given case, on much broader considerations of the purpose and policy underlying the two Acts and the clear intendment conveyed by the language of the relevant provisions therein." (p. 615) (of SCR): (at p. 622 of AIR)" (ii) In Municipal Council, Palai v. T. J. Joseph , [AIR 1963 SC 1561], the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus: "There is a presumption against a repeal by implication; and the reason of this rule is based on the theory that the Legislature while enacting a law has a complete knowledge of the existing laws on the same subject matter and therefore, when it does not provide a repealing provision, it gives out an intention not to repeal the existing legislation." (iii) In Union of India (UOI) and Ors. v. G. M. Kokil and Ors. (AIR 1984 SC 1022), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "It is well known that a non obstante clause is a legislative device which is usually employed to give overriding effect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found either in the same enactment or some other enactment, that is to say, to avoid the operation and effect of all contrary provisions." (iv) In KSL & Industries Ltd. v. Arihant Threads Ltd. [(2015) 1 SCC 166], the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “12. As stated earlier, the matter was earlier heard by a two Judge Bench of this Court. One of the learned Judges, Thakker, J. held that the provisions of RDDB Act **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 25 should be given priority and primacy over SICA by virtue of S.34 of the RDDB Act as it is a subsequent enactment. Therefore it may be presumed even in the absence of any specific provision, that Parliament was aware of all the Statutes enacted prior thereto; that the non - obstante clause had been inserted to ensure expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. Thakker, J. also held that in view of sub-section (2) of S.34 of the RDDB Act, which provides that the provisions of the Act are "in addition to and not in derogation of" inter alia SICA, which is an additional factor why the RDDB Act shall prevail. Kabir, J. as His Lordship then was, held that the non - obstante clause in S.34(1) contains an exception, to be found in sub-section (2). Subsection (2) provides that the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of inter alia the SICA. Further, that the overriding effect of RDDB Act would have an overriding effect over other enactments but supplemental to the provisions of SICA, and therefore, the provisions of SICA would prevail over the provisions of the RDDB Act. …............ …..…The term "in derogation of" means "in abrogation or repeal of." The Black's Law Dictionary sets forth the following meaning for "derogation": "The partial repeal or abrogation of a law by a later act that limits its scope or impairs its utility and force." It is clear that sub-section (1) contains a non - obstante clause, which gives the overriding **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** **==> picture [13 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** effect to the RDDB Act. Sub-section (2) acts in the nature of an exception to such an overriding effect. It states that this overriding effect is in relation to certain laws and that the RDDB Act shall be in addition to and not in abrogation of, such laws. The SICA is undoubtedly one such law.” 25. What is the effect of a subsequent enactment on the same subject, has been considered in Director of Local Fund Audit and Another v. Usha Rajathilakam and Another reported in 2018 (5) KHC 740 , wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court, taking note of the subject promulgation of the Local Fund Audit Act, 1994, which came into force on 15.01.1996, much after the enactment of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, at paragraphs 6 to 8 held thus: “6. Per contra, the petitioner's counsel has argued that S.295(9) of the Municipality Act has no application in this case because the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act was enacted in the year 1994. But the Kerala Municipality Act came into force in the year 1960. The present Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 has came into force to replace the present enactments relating to Municipalities and Municipal Corporations by a comprehensive enactment in line with the Constitution (Seventy Fourth) Amendment Act. The Act came into force on 29/03/1994. The Kerala Local Fund Audit Act was published on 11/05/1994 and the said Act came into force on 15/01/1996 i.e. after the enactment of the Kerala Municipality Act. 7. Now the only question to be considered is whether the bar of limitation, as provided under S.295(9) of the Kerala Municipality Act **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 27 applies to Ext.P2(a) Surcharge Certificate. The Kerala Local Fund Audit Act is a special enactment, that too a later enactment. It applies as far as the audit is concerned and surcharge notice as well as the Surcharge Certificate has been issued under the provisions of the Act. The Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994 was enacted to provide for and to regulate the audit of the local funds under the management or control of certain local authorities in the State of Kerala. The Kerala Local Fund Audit Act does not contain any provision or limitation for issuing Surcharge Certificate. 8. S.22 of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994 reads thus: "If 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 this Act, the latter shall prevail and the former be void to the extent of such repugnancy." So, as per S.22 of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994 it overrides all the other Laws, which are repugnant to the provisions of the said Act.” 26. When provisions are made in the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994, enabling auditing of a local body and consequential action under Sections 16, 19 and 27 of the said Act, the same cannot be set at naught and, therefore, the contention of Mr. Aravinda Kumar Babu, learned Senior Government Pleader, that Local Fund Audit Act is a special enactment, which would prevail over the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, merits acceptance. Our conclusion is also fortified by the overriding **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 28 effect of the Local Fund Audit Act, 1994, provided in Section 22, which, at the risk of repetition, is reproduced: “ 22. Act to override other enactment. - If 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 this Act, the latter shall prevail and the former be void to the extent of such repugnancy.” 27. Kerala Panchayat Act, 1994 came into effect on 23.11.1995, whereas Local Fund Audit Act, 1994 has come into effect on 15.01.1996. The former does not have a provision, on the overriding effect on any existing law. Legislative intent is clear. 28. We have gone through the judgment in Moni Achari's case (cited supra) and approve the same. In view of the above discussion and decisions, we hold that the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994 is a special enactment covering all the local bodies and the same will prevail over Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. No period of limitation is provided in the Local Fund Audit Act for issuing a surcharge certificate. Material on record further discloses that all the proceedings initiated are, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Fund Audit Act, 1994, and not as per the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The proceedings initiated against by the appellants cannot be said to be barred by limitation. For the reasons stated above, impugned judgment is set aside. Appellants are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.” **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** **==> picture [13 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 13. No doubt, the Division Bench of this Court was not confronted with the provision of Rule 20(11). On perusal of the same, it is evident that there is no deterrent provision in case the certificate is issued beyond four months. There is no bar for the authorities to submit a request to the competent authority for initiating steps under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. A fainted attempt has been made in relying on paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the judgment in S.S.Gadgil v. Lal and Company [1964 ICO 1252] to apply the ratio decidendi culled out therein. A perusal of the same, it is evident that the provisions of Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 prevented the Officer to take steps beyond a particular period. However, Rule 20(11) of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Rules does not bar any of the officer to issue a certificate beyond the period of four months from taking steps for recovery as it was done before the amendment caused to Rule 20(11) with effect from 28.9.2006. **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 30 14. Regarding the applicability of res judicata as regards the judgment cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent with regard to the bar of res judicata as in OP No.58/2006, the connected matter, findings were arrived at in favour of the delinquent by taking into consideration the documents by holding that there was no dereliction. I am afraid that the same findings cannot be applicable on going through a plain and simple reading of the provisions of Section 11 of the C.P.C, which reads as under: 11. Res judicata .—No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.” There is no finding between the same parties, though the matter in issue is the same. But the orders are not in the same findings. The findings ## **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 31 are always based upon the preponderance of the evidence, but the first respondent in OP No.57/2006 miserably failed to lead or bring on record before this Court by way of counter to prima facie establish that he discharged duty in implementation of the Scheme. The document produced as Annexure-A(6) and other documents referred to in the impugned order were brought on record by the other delinquent in OP No.58/2006. Thus, the argument of the learned Senior Counsel does not merit acceptance. No doubt that the coordinate Bench of this Court gave liberty to the first respondent to canvass the points. But The points could be only canvassed, had the documents been brought on record or were adverted to. 15. Thus, I am of the view that the findings of the District Judge in setting aside the recovery steps initiated on account of issuance of surcharge certificate to be barred by the law of limitation in view of Section 215(9) of the Kerala Panchayati Raj Act are not sustainable. **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 32 16. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Judge dated 18.02.2008 in OP (LF) No.57/2006 is set aside and the writ petition would stand allowed. The question of law is thus answered, in above manner. ## WP(C) No.7941/2009, 7662/2009 & 11155/2009 17. These writ petitions by the State are also filed seeking to set aside the judgments of the District Judge impugned therein rendered in the Original Petitions preferred by the first respondent in the writ petitions by invoking the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994. 18. In view of allowing of WP(C) No.5603/2009 as above, the question raised by the State has been answered in their favour. Therefore, these writ petitions by the State are also allowed by setting aside the judgments of the District Judge impugned in the writ petitions. **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 33 WP(C) Nos.3067/2008, 7684/2008, 14096/2009 & 34401/2009 19. In two writ petitions preferred by affected parties, i.e. WP(C) Nos.7684/2008 and 34401/2009, challenge was laid to the demand raised by the Grama Panchayat for recovery of the amount primarily on the ground of non-issuance of surcharge certificate, besides other grounds. WP(C) No.3067/2008 is filed seeking to quash Exts.P4 & P8 surcharge certificates issued in favour of the petitioner on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Similarly, petitioner in WP(C) No.14096/2009 also challenges Ext.P3 surcharge certificate and Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices issued against him on the very same ground and seeks to quash the same. Petitioners in these cases did not avail the alternate remedy by approaching the District Judge as was done in other matters by similarly situated persons. 20. Question of limitation has been decided in WP(C) No.5603/2009 as above in favour of the State by setting aside the order of the District **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 34 Judge quashing surcharge certificates, by holding the proceedings to be beyond the period of limitation and allowed the petitions filed by affected parties. Since District Judge allowed petitions on limitation but upheld recovery, I am of the view that it would require a fresh adjudication on merits as if demand notices were within the period of limitation. 21. It is made clear that all the affected parties are at liberty to approach the District Court, which shall decide the petitions filed or to be filed by the affected parties, in accordance with law. All the parties are at liberty to take all pleas on merits, on account of reason that this Court has only decided the question of limitation. Two months time from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, is granted to the petitioners to file petition before the District Court. If such petitions are filed by the petitioners, there shall not be any objection qua limitation. District Judge shall **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** **==> picture [13 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** dispose of the same within a period of four months from the date of filing of such petitions. WP(C) Nos.3067/2008, 7684/2008, 14096/2009 & 34401/2009 are disposed of as above. Sd/AMIT RAWAL JUDGE jg 36 ## **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** ## **APPENDIX IN WPC 5603/2009** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SURCHARGE NOTICE NO.LF14456/SP.CELL (SC2)/2004 DATED 2.6.2005. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF SURCHARGE CERTIFICATE NO.LF.14456/SP.CELL (SC2)/2004 DATED 24.1.2006. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF OP (LF) NO.57/2006. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY R2, DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN OP(LF) NO.57/2006 DATED 22.02.2007. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OP(LF) 57/2006 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA DATED 18.02.2008. ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** EXT. R1 (a) : TRUE COPY OF THE SURCHARGE NOTICE DATED 5.8.2004. EXT. R1 (b) : TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO THE SURCHARGE NOTICE DATED 5.10.2004. EXT. R1(c) : TRUE COPY OF REVISED SURCHARGE NOTICE DATED 29.4.2005. EXT. R1(d) :TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 28.7.2005 TO THE REVISED SURCHARGE NOTICE. EXT. R1(e): TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES IN THE AUDIT OBJECTION EXT. R1(f): TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE, VANDIPERIYAR POLICE STATION DATED 6.7.98. EXT. R1(g) : TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 10.2.1998 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS. EXT. R1(h) : TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 16.7.1999. ## **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 37 EXT. R1(i):TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 13.10.2000. EXT. R1(j) :TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION NO. 3 DATED 27.9.1999 OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE. EXT. R1(k) : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 31.10.2000 EXT. R1(l) :TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO EXT. R1(k) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.11.2000. EXT. R1(m) : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 30.12.2000 38 ## **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** ## **APPENDIX IN WPC 7662/2009** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SURCHARGE NOTICE NO.LF11728/SP.CELL (SC2)/05 DATED 16.8.2005. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF SURCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED 23.3.2006 (11728/SP.CELL (SC2)/05) EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF OP (LF) NO.46/2006 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF R1 & R2 IN OP(LF) 46/06 DATED 22.5.2007. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP(LF) 46/2006 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA DATED 28.02.2008. 39 ## **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** ## **APPENDIX IN WPC 7941/2009** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SURCHARGE NOTICE DATED 29.4.2006. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF SURCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED 25.10.2006 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF OP (LF) NO.12/2007 FILED ON 12.3.2007. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF R1 & R2 IN OP(LF) 12/2007 DATED 15.9.2007. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP(LF) 12/2007 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA DATED 3.3.2008. 40 ## **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** ## **APPENDIX IN WPC 11155/2009** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SURCHARGE NOTICE DATED 28.11.2005. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF SURCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED 26.12.2006 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF OP (LF) NO.7/2007 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA ON 6.2.2007. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF R1 & R2 IN OP(LF) 7/2007 DATED 20.7.2007. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP(LF) 7/2007 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA DATED 25.2.2008. 41 ## **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** ## **APPENDIX IN WPC 3067/2008** ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SURCHARGE NOTICE DATED 6.12.2001 ISSUED BY R2. P2 : TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF RELEVANT AUDIT OBJECTIONS ATTACHED ALONG WITH EXT.P1. P3 : TRUE COPY OF HTE OBJECTION DATED 31.1.2002 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2. P4 : TRUE COPY OF SURCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED 20.6.2002 ISSUED BY R2. P5 : TRUE COPY OF CHARGE NOTICE DATED 6.12.2001 ISSUED BY R2. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF HTE AUDIT OBJECTION ATTACHED ALONG WITH EXT.P5. P7 : TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 31.1.2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2. P8 : TRUE COPY OF CHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED 20.6.2002 ISSUED BY R2. P9 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 23.3.2007 IN WP(C) NO.5719/2006 PASSED BY THIS COURT. **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 42 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7684/2008** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18-042002. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF PARA 33 OF THE AUDIT REPORT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25-062007 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5&P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 20-2-2008 43 ## **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14096/2009** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 3.2.2009 IN FORM NO.1 ISSUED U/S 7 OF THE RR ACT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED NIL IN FORM NO.10 BY R5. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF SURCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED 13.6.2008 - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT FILED BY NELLIYAMPATHY PANCHAYAT. - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 10.2.2009 - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF STAY ORDER DATED 12.2.2009 - EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 10.2.2009 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 26.7.2007 IN WP(C) NO.11657/07 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 23.3.2007 IN WP(C) 5719/06. - EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 29.6.2010 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 28.5.1981 ## RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF AUDIT REPORT OF THE NELLIAMPATHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT 1999-2000 EXHIBIT R2(b) TRUE COPY OF POSTAL COVER DATED 24.9.2007 OF ## **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** 44 THE SURCHARGE NOTICE DATED 18.8.2007 EXHIBIT R2(c) TRUE COPY OF POSTAL COVER DATED 4.4.2008 OF SURCHARGE NOTICE DATED 18.9.2007 EXHIBIT R2(d) TRUE COPY OF POSTAL COVER DATED 8.7.2008 OF THE SURCHARGE CERTIFICTE DATED 13.6.2009. 45 ## **WP(C) NO. 5603/09 & conn** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34401/2009** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18-4-2002 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PARA 32 OF THE AUDIT REPORT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 1.9.2007. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 1.10.2009. EXHIBIT P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 1.10.2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R2(a) TRUE COPIES OF RELEVANT PAGE OF 21 OF PARA 32 OF AUDIT REPORT 1999-2000 EXT.R2(b) TRUE COPIES OF RELEVANT PAGE NO.53 OF PARA 6-3-1 OF CONSOLIDATED AUDIT REPORT 200102. EXT.R2(c) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF GUIDELINE (3.2) OF GO(MS) NO.20/99/PLG DATED 5.4.1999 EXT.R2(d) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.LF 5782/SPL CELL (SC-2)/2003 DATED 2.6.2003. EXT.R2(e) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.LF1-6/368/2003 DATED 8.7.2003.