Kerala High Court
Dr.Arun Anirudhan vs Union Of India
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh, Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/9TH CHAITHRA, 1939
WP(C). NO.8615 OF 2017 (S)
-----------
PETITIONER(S):
DR.ARUN ANIRUDHAN,S/O.ANIRUDHAN V.,
AGED 38 YEARS,ENGINEER D,
SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT C22 GLEN VALLEY,
MUDAVANMUGHAL, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 102.
BY ADV. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHONOLOGY,
DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
TECHNOLOGY BHAVAN, NEW MEHRAULI ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110 016.
2. THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA,
POCKET-9, DEEN DHAYAL UPADHYAYA MARG, NEW DELHI-110 124.
3. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF AUDIT,
INDIAN AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT,,
SCIENTIFIC DEPARTMENTS, BANGALORE BRANCH,
ANTARIKSH BHAVAN, NEW B.E.L. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 094.
4. SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.
5. THE GOVERNING BODY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SREE CHITRA TIRUNALINSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCE AND
TECHONOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.
R1 TO R3 BY ADV.SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASG
R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI,SC,
THIS WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-03-2017,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).8615/2017 (S)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-
P1: COPY OF THE SREE CHITRA INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND
TECHNOLOGY, TRIVANDRUM ACT, 1980.
P2: COPY OF THE POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND
TECHNOLOGY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PER & ADMN. III/35/BMT/2006 DATED 25-08-
2006 ISSUED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
P4: COPY OF THE RE-TYPED COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 96TH MEETING OF
THE 5TH RESPNDENT CONVENED ON 30-07-2016.
P5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. DA/BNG/RTI/SCTIMST/ARUN ANIRUDHAN/2016-
17/972 DATED 23.02.2017 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
P6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A1/141/RTI/2017 DATED 09-02-2017 ISSUED
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J. &
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.8615 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2017
JUDGMENT
Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.
An Engineer employed in Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Science and Technology constituted under the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Science and Technology, Trivandrum, Act, 1980, an Act of Parliament, complains that the institute has appointed private chartered accountants to audit their accounts which is in conflict with the provisions of Sections 18 and 19 of the said Act which confers jurisdiction on the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) to do the work. That apart, Articles 149 and 151 of the Constitution also obliges the CAG to audit the accounts of such public institute. Submission is, those provisions being there, it was not open to the institute to appoint private auditors.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the institute submits that the institute has neither taken a decision nor expressed any desire to shut out or substitute the CAG. It is always open to the CAG to audit the accounts. In the past, it is the CAG, who has audited the accounts and the audit reports have been placed in the WP(C).8615/17 -:2:- Parliament. It is only now for its own use, local auditors have been appointed. But, they are not to the exclusion of CAG. He submits that there is no prohibition in law in the institute deciding to get their accounts audited by private agency, in addition to the statutory audit being carried out by the CAG.
3. We have considered the provisions of the Act and the Constitution. In view of the stand taken by the institute, which we feel is correct, CAG has not been asked to audit the accounts. It could not have been so asked also because it is their statutory obligation. It is not to the exclusion of the CAG that the private auditors are functioning. They are for internal purposes. In that view of the matter, there is no infraction of either the Constitution or statute.
Writ petition merits no consideration. It is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice Sd/-
Antony Dominic, Judge krj.30/3