IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 38240 of 2007(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- K.V.SEETHARAMAN, KURILI HOUSE, P.O.PONNUKKARA, THRISSUR-14. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, OLLUKKARA, KLDC BUILDING, OLLUKKARA P.O., THRISSUR. 2. PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR), THRISSUR-2. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, PUTHUR P.O., THRISSUR. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.38240 of 2007 ------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner was the Convener of the Kerala Karshaka Samithi, which has carried out the Community Irrigation Work at Ponnukkara in Puthoor Village in Thrissur District. An amount of Rs.28,24,844/- was fixed by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Agriculture), Thrissur as the valuation of the Lift Irrigation Scheme of Ponnukkara and Rs.24,01,117/- was fixed as the contribution of the Government. 2. Learned Government Pleader contends that the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau inspected the work in question and was it valued at Rs.25,30,909/-. Apparently, it was concluded, therefore, that there is excess payment of Rs.4,79,151/-. 2. The petitioner was then asked to remit the said amount. He challenged the same in W.P.(C)No.26738/02, which was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment requiring the respondents to fix the amount after due notice to him. Accordingly, the petitioner was given notice and a hearing W.P.(C).NO.38240/07 :: 2 :: was conducted on 7.3.2007 by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, he has not been served with a copy of the proceedings. Pursuant to the order dated 7.3.2007, the recovery notices have been issued for recovery of the amount. 3. On instructions, learned Government Pleader submitted that the aforementioned facts and also produced before me a copy of the order No.OB(2)/196/01 dated 7.3.2007 passed by the Assistant Director, affirming that an amount of Rs.4,79,151/- is due from the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a copy of the said order has not been served on him so far. There is no material to show that a copy of the said order has actually been served on the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the said order was sent to the petitioner by ordinary post. There is dispute that it was served on the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I think, it is only appropriate that a copy is now served on the petitioner to avoid further dispute. A copy of the said order is now W.P.(C).NO.38240/07 :: 3 :: served on the counsel for the petitioner. This shall be treated as due service of the proceedings of the Assistant Director dated 7.3.2007. It is open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in relation to the said order. To enable him to do so, further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4, P5, P6 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge