IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 25915 of 2006(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ T.FAIZAL, THOTTATHILAKATHU HOUSE, PUNNATHALA P.O., KURUMBATHUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. KUTTIPPURAM BLOCK PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUTTIPPURAM. 3. M.MUHAMMED SALIM, CHAIRMAN, BENEFICIARY COMMITTEE, PUTHENATHANI WATER SUPPLY SCHEME, WORKING AS HEADMASTER, A.M.L.P.SCHOOL, PUTHENATHANI, PUNNATHALA P.O. MALAPPURAM. 4. DEPUTY THASILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY) TIRUR TALUK. 5. AVARANKUTTY S/O SAIDALAVI, POTHENGAL P.O., KURAMPATHOOR AMSOM, TIRUR DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASHROF SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.JIJO JOSEPH GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.25915/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 3.2.99. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 1.3.99. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 8.5.2000. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25915 of 2006 ------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner was the Convener of a committee called 'beneficiary committee' for the Puthenathani Water Supply Scheme; intended to provide water from a public well situated in A.M.L.P.School for the benefit of the general public in the locality. The scheme was sponsored by the block panchayat-2nd respondent and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was made available to the beneficiary committee, as evidenced by Ext.P1. Members of the beneficiary committee, including the petitioner are signatories to Ext.P1. Since the petitioner was the Convener of the committee, he was nominated to execute Ext.P2 agreement separately. Liability for doing the work and the liability for recompensing any loss that may be caused to the panchayat, if the work is not completed, is cast on the Convener of the committee. Clause 12 of Ext.P2 reads as follows: “The Convener hereby agrees that the work will be completed in all respects within the originally agreed period or at least within the reasonably extended period. If he fails to complete the work within that agreed period, the Panchayath can take any penal action including the termination of W.P.(C).NO.25915/06 :: 2 :: the contract and rearrangement of the remaining works through other agencies at the risk and cost of the Convener. The Convener will be responsible for all the inconveniences and losses caused to the Panchayath in the undue delay in completion of the work, and consequent rearrangement of the work through other agencies and he is bound to make good all such losses.” 2. Apparently, though an amount of Rs.50,000/- was received by the petitioner as the Convener, the work, for which amount was originally received, was not completed. This position is practically admitted by the petitioner himself. But, without any separate proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent-panchayat indicating breach of contract and quantifying the extent of damages that must have been suffered by the 2nd respondent on account of the breach of the members of the beneficiary committee, Ext.P4 notice has been issued to the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P3 contains the details of the the breach as such. I am not able to determine any breach of contract on the part of the petitioner merely by a reference to Ext.P3. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that no separate proceedings were issued before Ext.P4 revenue recovery notice. W.P.(C).NO.25915/06 :: 3 :: 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the Senior Government Pleader. 4. No doubt, there is a liability cast on the petitioner as Convener of the committee in Ext.P2 agreement, to complete the work. If there is default on his part in that regard, he will be held liable for the damages arising therefrom. There cannot be any doubt as to the position of the petitioner in this regard. But breach of contract and quantification of the damages consequent upon such breach, are matters which will, at least, have to be found out by the 2nd respondent and indicated in the proceedings to be drawn up after due notice to the petitioner. That has also not been done in this case. Ext.P4 was not preceded by an enquiry or quantification of the damages as such. I, therefore, find it difficult to sustain Ext.P4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to issue a notice to the petitioner indicating the extent of the damages sought to be realised by the 2nd respondent from the petitioner. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner shall file objections thereto and the petitioner shall be heard on such objections by the 2nd W.P.(C).NO.25915/06 :: 4 :: respondent panchayat. Separate proceedings will have to be drawn up, if the petitioner is found liable to pay the damages to the 2nd respondent by reason of Ext.P2 agreement. On passing of such proceedings, it is open to the 2nd respondent to take steps for recovery of the amount in accordance with law. Enforcement of Ext.P4 will be kept in abeyance till such proceedings are issued by the 2nd respondent and this may be done within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Further continuance of Ext.P4 will be subject to the decision to be taken by the panchayat. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//