Judgment :- AntonyDominic, J. 1. The petitioner challenges Ext. P3 surchage certificate, issued for Rs. 5,000/-to the petitioner Briefly stated the facts of the case are that: 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 mobilization advance of Rs. 5,000/- to the convener 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 section 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 Section 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 section 22 of the Local Fund Audit Act, 1994. I have heard the counsel for the parties. 4. Proviso to Section 215(9) states that no surcharge under section 215(9) shall be made after a period of 4 years from the date on which the expenditure in question was incurred. As already seen the expenditure in question was incurred on 11.08.2000. Admittedly, Ext. P3 surcharge certificate was issued only on 26.03.2008. If that be so, in view of the proviso referred to above, the claim is time barred. This conclusion is fully supported by the judgment of this court in Writ Petition 27559 of 2007, a copy of which is Ext. P5. 5. Admittedly, Ext. P3 surcharge certificate was issued only on 26.03.2008. If that be so, in view of the proviso referred to above, the claim is time barred. This conclusion is fully supported by the judgment of this court in Writ Petition 27559 of 2007, a copy of which is Ext. P5. 5. In so far as section 22 of the Local Fund Audit Act, 1994 relied on by the learned Government Pleader is concerned, the said provision reads as under: "Section 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 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." 6. This section can be relied on only if any of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act relied on by the petitioner is repugnant to any of the provisions of the 1994 Act. A perusal of 1994 Act shows that there is no provision in the Act prescribing limitation as contained in the proviso to section 215(9) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, for surcharging a person. Consequently respondent cannot argue that the proviso is repugnant to any of the provision of the 1994 Act to take advantage of Section 22 of the said Act. Therefore the reliance of section 22 is absolutely misplaced. 7. In the result accepting the case of the petitioner that in view of the proviso to Section 215(9) of Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, the claim is time barred and therefore Ext. P3 is illegal, has to be accepted. Consequently Ext.P3 is quashed. Writ petition is allowed.