NARAYANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the Petitioner in O.P. No. 31184 of 2001. During the relevant time, he was the Secretary of Kannur Municipality. A show cause notice was issued by the Local Fund Audit Department under Section 9(2) of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994, produced as Ext.P4 in the Original Petition, to show cause as to why steps for prosecution shall not be initiated for non submission of accounts in terms of Section 9(2) of the said Act. Petitioner challenged the said notice on various grounds.

(2.) In the Writ Petition, he, inter alia, challenged the very provision contained in Section 9(2) of the Local Fund Audit Act and also contended that in the light of the subsequent enactment, namely the provisions contained in Sections 294 and 295 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, Section 9(2) of the Local Fund Audit Act should be deemed to have been repealed. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions and repelled the challenge against Section 9(2) of the Local Fund Audit Act. It is also held that the provisions of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act in so far as they relates to the Municipalities do not stand repealed impliedly or otherwise by reason of Sections 294 and 295 of the Municipality Act. It was further held that the Secretary of the Municipality is the executive officer as contemplated under Section 9(2) of the Act and it is he who can be arrayed as accused for prosecution but in case the duties of the Secretary have been duly delegated to some other officer, then the Director of Local Fund Audit has to look into those aspects. In that view, a further opportunity was given to the appellant/petitioner to file an explanation to the show cause notice and the Deputy Director or the Director, as the case may be, was directed to consider the objection and see whether he is satisfied that a criminal prosecution under Section 9(2) of the Local Fund Audit Act is to be launched or not.

(3.) Not satisfied with the relief as granted above and in view of the repelling of the contentions raised against Section 9(2) of the Local Fund Audit Act, the appellant has preferred this Writ Appeal.