JUDGMENT : Petitioners were the Chairperson and members of Adoor Municipality - the 1st respondent respectively during the period 2000-2005. It is aggrieved by the action initiated by respondents 1 to 3 i.e., the Adoor Municipality, the Director, Urban Affairs Directorate, Thiruvananthapuram, the Secretary to the Government, Department of Local Administration, Thiruvananthapuram, for realisation of an amount of Rs.2,90,366/-, from the petitioners in equal proportion towards the loss caused to the Municipality during their tenure, the writ petition is filed. 2. During the said period, Municipality entered into a contract with a private firm by name, M/s.Ammini Energy Systems Private Limited, for the purpose of purchasing certain electric items for installation of street lights. Pointing out irregularities, the Finance Department of the State Government caused an inspection and found certain irregularities quantifying the loss so caused to the Municipality at Rs.2,90,366/-. Consequently, proceedings purportedly under section 547(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, have been initiated against the 1st petitioner and the Secretary of the Municipality. 3. According to the petitioners, 2nd respondent Municipality, based on the resolution adopted by the Council in its meeting held on 15/9/2004, had invited competitive tenders/quotation from recognised suppliers, for the supply of electric lamps and other items for installation of street lights in various wards within the limits of the Municipality, evident from Exhibit P1. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the Council had taken the aforesaid decision on the basis of the demands made by all the 22 Councillors, to utilise the own funds of the Municipality earmarked for the development of each ward. The tender notice, besides publishing in the notice board, was published in two vernacular dailies and the details with respect to the lamps were also specified in the notice, evident from Exhibits P2 to P4. The quotations were opened on 19.10.2004 and it was placed before the Municipal Engineer for examination. The Municipal Engineer prepared a note pointing out that M/s.Ammini Energy Systems Private Limited, alone quoted the rate for CFL lights, while two others did not quote any rate. It was further noted that for the supply of sodium vapour lamps, lowest rate was quoted by M/s.Electro Tech Industries, however, without specifying the ISI mark or name of the manufacturer. The Municipal Engineer prepared a note pointing out that M/s.Ammini Energy Systems Private Limited, alone quoted the rate for CFL lights, while two others did not quote any rate. It was further noted that for the supply of sodium vapour lamps, lowest rate was quoted by M/s.Electro Tech Industries, however, without specifying the ISI mark or name of the manufacturer. As regards tube lights, it was noted that the lowest quotation was from M/s.Electro Tech Industries but since it was not shown that the lights to be supplied by the Electro Tech Industries has ISI mark, it was suggested to address the suppliers for clarification. Accordingly, necessary steps were taken in accordance with the note made by the Municipal Engineer. The response from the respective bidder was placed before the Municipal Engineer and it was again verified. 5. After verification, the matter was placed before the Council and a unanimous decision No.7 dated 25.1.2005 of the council preferred the quotation submitted by M/s.Ammini Energy Systems Private Limited and authorised the Chairman of the “Standing Committee for Development” to negotiate further with the supplier. The reasons for preferring M/s.Ammini Energy Systems Private Limited, has been specifically stated in the said decision. 6. On a comparative evaluation, the Council noted that M/s.Ammini Energy Systems Private Limited alone offered automatic CFL and the 550 CFL already supplied by the company installed in several places were in good condition and further that, the maintenance of the street lights were being done promptly. However, as regards the rate quoted by M/s.Ammini Energy Systems Private Limited in respect of CFL was found to be on the higher side and it was decided to negotiate with the representative of the company, evident from Exhibit P5 resolution. 7. Therefore, negotiations were done in respect of the three items quoted by M/s.Ammini Energy Systems Private Limited, as per which, the supplier agreed to reduce the price and to enhance the warranty period from 15 months to 20 months. Based on the negotiation, the Council in its meeting held on 14.2.2015, as per decision No.3(1) and (2) resolved to accept the quotation, evident from Exhibit P6. 8. Based on the negotiation, the Council in its meeting held on 14.2.2015, as per decision No.3(1) and (2) resolved to accept the quotation, evident from Exhibit P6. 8. Since the amount quoted by M/s.Ammini Energy Systems Private Limited was on the higher side compared to the rate quoted by M/s.Electro Tech Industries involving an excess amount of Rs.2,30,296/-although reasons were stated, the Secretary of the Municipality, sought opinion of the Government as per Exhibit P7 letter dated 26.2.2005 but there was no response. Therefore, according to the petitioners, with a view to avoid unnecessary delay, Exhibit P8 supply order dated 28.2.2005 was issued to M/s.Ammini Energy Systems Private Limited and Exhibit P9 formal agreement was executed by and between the Municipality and the Contractor. Consequent to the supply order and the agreement, the items were delivered to the Municipality. 9. Matters being so, a surprise inspection was carried out by the Government, which according to the petitioners, without resorting to the provisions of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994, hereinafter called, “Act, 1994” and sections 294 and 295 of the Municipality Act. Inspection of the files was apparently carried out by the Finance Department of the State Government on 27th & 28th day of June, 2006 and the Officer concerned has an opinion that, certain irregularities were committed in the matter of awarding contract to M/s.Ammini Energy Systems Private Limited, resulting in a loss of an amount of Rs.2,90,366/-, evident from Exhibit P10 report. 10. In the meanwhile, the Secretary of the Local Self Government Department -3rd respondent, caused an enquiry through the Joint Director of Urban Affairs. Enclosing the said report, the 2nd respondent addressed the 3rd respondent as per Exhibit P11 letter dated 3.7.2007, in which it is stated that, since all the Councillors are party to the decision of the Council, they are jointly responsible for the loss caused to the Municipality. 11. Based on Exhibit P10 report, Exhibit P12 notice dated 23.3.2007 was issued by the Municipality informing that recovery action would be taken to realise an amount of Rs.1,45,183/-being one half of the total loss assessed from him in terms of section 547(1) of the Municipality Act, 1994. The 1st respondent responded to the same by issuing Exhibit P13 reply dated 15.6.2007, explaining the circumstances under which the Municipal Council has taken the decision to award the contract to M/s.Ammini Energy Systems Private Limited. The 1st respondent responded to the same by issuing Exhibit P13 reply dated 15.6.2007, explaining the circumstances under which the Municipal Council has taken the decision to award the contract to M/s.Ammini Energy Systems Private Limited. On receipt of Exhibit P12, the Municipal Council convened a meeting on 29.8.2007 and after considering the reply of the petitioners and also the Secretary, resolved as per Exhibit P14 decision dated 21.8.2007, to request the Government to drop the proceedings. It seems the Secretary of the Municipality, against whom proceedings were initiated to recover the amount, has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.33097/2010, in which the proceedings against the Secretary were stayed on 17.3.2021. Thereupon, Exhibit P15 order was passed dated 25.1.2012, by the Secretary to the Local Self Government Department, whereby it was directed that Chairman, Councillors and the Secretary should share the loss of Rs.2,90,366/-in equal proportion as per Exhibit P16 series of notices dated 16.8.2012. It is the case of the petitioners that they have responded to the notices by issuing Exhibit P17, and similar replies. It is thus challenging Exhibit P10 report of the Finance Department and the proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P15 and Exhibit P16 notices threatening to initiate revenue recovery action against the petitioners to recover the amount of Rs.13,827/-each, the writ petition is filed. 12. The paramount contention advanced is that Exhibits P10, P15 and P16 are issued without providing any opportunity of hearing and participation to the petitioners and therefore, they are violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that the amount expended for the purchase of materials in question, is from the local fund administered by the Municipality within the meaning of section 2(g) of the Act, 1994, and therefore, in the event of any loss, waste or misappropriation of funds of the Municipality on account of any negligence or misconduct of any person making such loss, the course available to remedy such situation is by invoking surcharge proceedings under section 16 of the Act, 1994. 13. The sum and substance of the contentions advanced by the petitioner is that before resorting to such procedure, there shall be an audit of the accounts by the examiner of the local fund as defined under section 2(a) of the Act, 1994. 13. The sum and substance of the contentions advanced by the petitioner is that before resorting to such procedure, there shall be an audit of the accounts by the examiner of the local fund as defined under section 2(a) of the Act, 1994. That apart, section 285 of the Kerala Municipality Act elaborately provides the procedure and the manner in which the audit of accounts are to be made. Therefore, according to the petitioners, as provided under sub-section (9), the local fund examiner, before certifying the amount due from any person, shall give reasonable opportunity to explain, and sub-section (10) enables the aggrieved person to prefer an appeal against the decision made by the local fund examiner before the District Court. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the impugned action being contrary to the statutory provisions, cannot be sustained. It is in the above background that the coercive action is sought to be quashed. The petitioners have also taken up a contention that the action initiated against the petitioners by issuing Exhibit P16 demand notices dated 16.8.2012 is after a 3 year period of limitation prescribed under section 547 and therefore, they are legally unsustainable. 14. The Municipality has filed a detailed counter affidavit, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners and supporting the action initiated against the petitioners. It is also stated that on receipt of Exhibit P16 notice, the erstwhile Secretary of the Municipality, has paid his share of Rs.13,827/-and consequentially, he was absolved from all liabilities, evident from Exhibit R1(b). The predominant contention advanced in the counter affidavit is that Exhibit P16 series of notices are issued on the basis of Exhibit P10 report of the Principal Secretary, Finance Department dated 7.10.2006 and according to the Municipality, Exhibit P10 is an audit report made by the Local Fund Audit Department. 15. I have heard, learned counsel appearing for petitioner Sri.Suresh Kumar Kodoth, Sri.V.M.Shyam Kumar for the Adoor Municipality, learned Government Pleader Sri.Jacob E. Simon for other respondents and perused the pleadings and materials on record. 16. Admittedly, proceedings are initiated on the basis of Exhibit P10 report drawn by the Principal Finance Secretary, Government of Kerala. 15. I have heard, learned counsel appearing for petitioner Sri.Suresh Kumar Kodoth, Sri.V.M.Shyam Kumar for the Adoor Municipality, learned Government Pleader Sri.Jacob E. Simon for other respondents and perused the pleadings and materials on record. 16. Admittedly, proceedings are initiated on the basis of Exhibit P10 report drawn by the Principal Finance Secretary, Government of Kerala. The funds handled by the Municipality is a subject matter for proceedings under the Act, 1994, which is an Act provided to regulate the audit of the local funds under the management or control of certain local authorities in the State of Kerala. “Auditor” is defined under section 2(a) to mean, the Director of Local Fund Audit and includes any other officer of the Local Fund Audit Department empowered by the Director to perform the functions of an Auditor under the Act, 1994; “local fund” is defined under section 2(g) to mean, (i) a fund administered by a local authority which, though not part of a Government Department, has been established by or under a law or orders of the Government and; (ii) any other fund which the Government may, by notification in the gazette, declare to be a local fund for the purpose of the Act, 1994. The manner in which the audit of accounts of the local authorities to be carried out are specifically recited in the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994. Section 5 thereto clearly specifies that the Director may, with the previous sanction of the Government, and without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4, audit the accounts of any authority, body, institution or fund, not included in the Schedule subject to such terms and conditions, as may be agreed upon between the Director and the person responsible for the administration of such authority, body, institution or fund. Section 7 deals with the manner in which the audit is to be conducted and rule 9 encompasses a liability on the local authorities to prepare and present an account after audit. The Auditor is vested with ample power to require production of account and on failure to do so, the Auditor empowered to initiate penal action. Section 15 deals with procedure to be followed after getting the report of the Director under section 13, which reads thus: “15. The Auditor is vested with ample power to require production of account and on failure to do so, the Auditor empowered to initiate penal action. Section 15 deals with procedure to be followed after getting the report of the Director under section 13, which reads thus: “15. Procedure to be followed after getting the report of the Director under section 13 -(1) On receipt of a report under section 13, the Executive authority concerned shall either remedy the defects or irregularities which may have been pointed out in the report and send to the Director within two months of the receipt of the report or with in such period as may be specified under the law governing the local authority, intimation of his having done so, or shall within the said period, supply to the Director any further explanations as he may wish to make in regard to the defects or irregularities. (2) On receipt of such intimation or explanation, the Auditor may, in respect of all or any of the matters discussed in his report-(a) accept the intimation or explanation and drop the objection; or (b) hold that the defects or irregularities pointed out in the report or any of them have not been removed or remedied. (3) (a) The auditor shall send a report of his decision to the executive authority concerned within two months from the date of receipt by him of the intimation or explanation referred in subsection (1) or if no such intimation or explanation is received, on the expiry of the period of two months mentioned in that sub-section. (b) If the auditor holds that any defects or irregularities have not been removed or remedied he shall state in the report,-(i) Whether, in his opinion, the defects or irregularities can be regularised and,if so, by what method; (ii) if they do not admit of being regularised, whether they can be condoned and, if so, by what authority; and (iii) whether the amounts to which the defects or irregularities relate should, in his opinion, be charged and, if so, against whom. (4) The local authority concerned shall publish in its next administration report such portions of the report under section 13, dealing with defects and irregularities falling under clause (b) of sub-section (2) together with the explanation thereof, if any, given under sub-section (1) and the final report of the auditor thereon under sub-section (3). (4) The local authority concerned shall publish in its next administration report such portions of the report under section 13, dealing with defects and irregularities falling under clause (b) of sub-section (2) together with the explanation thereof, if any, given under sub-section (1) and the final report of the auditor thereon under sub-section (3). The report of defects and irregularities, the explanation thereon and the final report shall be open to inspection by the public at the office of the local authority for a period of one month from the date of their receipt. (5) Nothing in this section or in section 13 shall preclude the auditor, at any time, from bringing to the notice of the Government or of any officer of Government for such action as may be necessary, any information which appears to the auditor to support a presumption of criminal misappropriation or fraud or which, in his opinion, deserves special attention or immediate investigation.” 17. Section 16 deals with Auditor to surcharge illegal payments and loss caused by negligence or misconduct, which reads thus: “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 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. (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 sub-section (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.” 18. Rule 20 of the Kerala Audit Fund Rules 1996 (Rules, 1996) deals with procedure for charge/surcharge proceedings and in fact rule 19 deals with form and contents of the audit report. For the sake of brevity and convenience, rule 20 of the Rules, 1996 is extracted hereunder: “20. Procedure for charge/surcharge proceedings 1. The officer authorised to issue the report on the audit of accounts of a local authorities/local funds shall while issuing the further remarks under sub-rule (3) or rule 23 of these rules forward to the Director a proposal for charge/surcharge action in respect of the pending cases of losses pointed out in the audit report concerned. The charge/surcharge proposal shall be in Form VIII appended to these rules. 2. On receipt of the proposals for charge/surcharge proceedings from the officer authorised to issue the auditor report, the Director shall as early as practicable but before the completion of four month from the date of receipt of such proposals, issue, charge/surcharge notices to the officer (s) held responsible for the losses detected by the auditors. 3. The charge/surcharge notices shall be in Form IX and IX (A) appended to these rules. 4. 3. The charge/surcharge notices shall be in Form IX and IX (A) appended to these rules. 4. The charge/surcharge notices (in duplicate) along with extracts of the relevant objections in the audit report shall be communicated to the person against whom it is made by registered post with acknowledgement due. 5. The duplicate copy of the charge/surcharge notice shall be returned to the Director by the person receiving it, with his dated acknowledgement in proof of having received the notice. 6. Copy of the charge/surcharge notice shall be issued to the Executive authority concerned. 7. Unless the person served with a charge/surcharge notice remit to the Executive authority concerned the amount involved in the notice and furnish the details thereon to the Director within two months, from the date of receipt of the notice, or furnish satisfactory explanations, such person shall be served with charge/surcharge certificate in Form X and X (A) appended to these rules, with copy to the Executive authority concerned. 8. The report showing details of remittance of amounts involved in the charge/surcharge notices to be furnished by the person(s) responsible under sub-rule (7) above shall be forwarded to the Director through the Executive authority concerned. The Executive authority shall retransmit the same to the Director with a certificate to the effect that the details furnished have been verified by him and found correct. 9. The charge/surcharge certificate (in duplicate) shall be communicated to the person against whom it is made, by registered post with acknowledgement due. 10. The duplicate copy of the charge/surcharge certificate shall be returned to the Director by the person receiving it with his/her dated acknowledgement affixed on it. 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. 12. The Director shall serve on the person responsible for any loss to a local authority/local fund supplementary charge/surcharge notice or charge/surcharge certificate relating to the same audit report if the circumstances so warrant. 13. Every sum charge/surcharged by the Director on any person shall be remitted by such person to the Executive Authority within one month from the date of receipt of such charge/surcharge certificate, unless within that time such person files an application before the District Court against the decision of the auditor. 13. Every sum charge/surcharged by the Director on any person shall be remitted by such person to the Executive Authority within one month from the date of receipt of such charge/surcharge certificate, unless within that time such person files an application before the District Court against the decision of the auditor. Such amount if not so paid or such amount as the District Court shall declare to be due under sub section (3) of Section 16 of the Act 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 arrears of public revenue due on land.” 19. Rule 21 of the Rules, 1996 clearly stipulates that Auditor to name the persons responsible for the loss detected and the extent of responsibility of such person and it is specified that the loss detected by the Auditor during the course of audit of accounts of a local authority/local fund shall be fixed correctly by the Auditor at the time of audit by verifying the records concerned. The name(s) of the person(s) held responsible shall be incorporated in the audit report as well as in the proposal for charge/surcharge action to be forwarded to the Director. 20. On an analysis of the provisions of the Kerala Audit Fund Act, 1994 and the Rules, 1996 thereto, it is clear that the procedure prescribed thereunder are peremptory in nature and they have to be followed scrupulously before proceeding to impose the charge/surcharge on the persons responsible. It is clear from section 16 of the Act, 1994 that a person aggrieved on the basis of surcharge imposed by the Auditor, is at liberty to apply to the District Court, to set aside such disallowance/surcharge and the court, after taking such evidence, is vested with power to confirm/modify/remit such disallowance, surcharge or charge. It is clear from section 16 of the Act, 1994 that a person aggrieved on the basis of surcharge imposed by the Auditor, is at liberty to apply to the District Court, to set aside such disallowance/surcharge and the court, after taking such evidence, is vested with power to confirm/modify/remit such disallowance, surcharge or charge. It also makes it clear that every sum certified to be due from any person by the Auditor under the Act shall be paid by such persons to the executive authority within one month after 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 sub-section (3) of section 16 and such amount if not paid, or such amount District Court shall declare to be due, shall be recoverable under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 21. Therefore, assuming that Exhibit P10 is an audit report in terms of the reference made by the Director as per the Act, 1994, the imperative aspect contained under the Act, 1994, is to specify the person responsible, and the amount due from each person to be made part of the report. 22. On a perusal of Exhibit P10, it is clear that the report has not spelt out the names of persons, who are responsible for the alleged loss caused to the Municipality nor any proceedings were issued to them enabling them to take recourse to the legal remedies as provided under section 16 of the Act, 1994. That apart, if the report is served on the persons responsible and the amounts were not paid within one month as provided under section 16(4) of the Act, 1994, then a remedy is open to the executive authority of the local body to proceed against the responsible persons under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore, it can be seen that, if at all Exhibit P10 dated 7.10.2006 was served on the petitioners within a reasonable time therefrom and if the amounts were not paid by the petitioners within two months, proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act ought to have been initiated as if it were an arrear of public revenue due on land. 23. 23. Therefore, it is clear from the audit report, if the audit report was served on the petitioners after scrupulously following the imperatives contained under the Act, 1994 and the Rules thereto, there is no bar for recovery of the amount in view of the statutory empowerment to recover the amounts. But here is a case where there is no mention of the names of the persons responsible for the loss caused to the Municipality and there is no case for the respondent that Exhibit P10 report was served on each of the petitioners enabling them to challenge the same before the District Court in contemplation of section 16(3) of Act, 1994. 24. It is true, section 547 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 deals with liability of Chairperson, Secretary and Councillors for the loss, waste or misapplication of money and sub-section (1) thereto stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained under section 67, the Chairperson, every Councillors and the Secretary shall be liable for the loss, waste or misapplication of money or other property owned by or vested in a Municipality, if such loss, waste or misapplication is a direct consequence of their neglect or misconduct and a suit for compensation may be instituted against them by the Municipality or by any tax payer of the Municipal area, however, every such suit shall be instituted within 3 years after the date on which the cause of action arose. 25. Therefore, going by the said provision, it is clear that the cause of action arose when Exhibit P16 report dated 7.10.2006 was drawn by the Principal Secretary to Finance Department of the State of Kerala and the suit prescribed under section 547(2) is barred even at the time of issuance of Exhibit P16 series of notice dated 16.8.2012. However, as I have pointed out above, the recovery action on the basis of Exhibit P10 report was not barred, if any action under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act was initiated within three years from the date of cause of action as provided under Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act 1994, but no action under the said act was also not initiated. That apart the recovery cannot be proceeded with since the mandatory requirements contained under the provisions of the Act, 1994 and the Rules, 1996 thereto, were not followed by the respondents which is quite clear and evident from Exhibit P10 report specifically discussed above. 26. That apart section 295 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 deals with the manner in which the accounts and audit of the Municipality are to be dealt with and sub-section (3) thereto clearly specifies that the Examiner of local fund accounts and his nominees shall be the Auditors of the Municipality. Various other imperative conditions are prescribed thereunder and one important aspect of the said provision is that subsection (11) enables any person aggrieved by any disallowance, surcharge or charge, may within 14 days after the date of service on him of the decision of the Auditor, make application 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 with such orders as to costs as it may think proper in the circumstances. A further appeal is provided under sub-section (13) of section 295 from the order of the District Court to the High Court. Sub-section (14) also makes it clear if the amount is not paid within 30 days after the date of service on him of the decision of the Auditors etc., the amount shall be recoverable as if it were an arrear on land revenue. 27. Taking into account all the legal and factual circumstances, 28. Therefore, the rule position is clear from the provisions of the enactments discussed above, however no action was also initiated to recover the amounts from the petitioners either by filing a civil suit or for recovery under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, within the limitation period prescribed under law. True, in the writ petition filed by the petitioners, a stay was granted by this Court on 5.4.2013, which is still in force, but at the time of filing of the writ petition itself the recovery was barred under law calculating the cause of action from the date of Exhibit P10. 29. True, in the writ petition filed by the petitioners, a stay was granted by this Court on 5.4.2013, which is still in force, but at the time of filing of the writ petition itself the recovery was barred under law calculating the cause of action from the date of Exhibit P10. 29. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to succeed in the writ petition and accordingly I hold that the Municipality is not entitled to proceed against the petitioners on the basis of Exhibit P10 report submitted by the Principal Secretary to Finance Department and the consequential notice viz., Exhibit P15 dated 25.1.2012 and Exhibit P16 series of notice dated 16.8.2012 issued to the petitioners, as they are barred under law.