IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 2086 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.28894/2003 Dated 06/03/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER. ------------------------- ERATTUPETTA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED ITS SECRETARY, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. GUNABHOKTHA SAMIDHI (BENEFICIARY COMMITTEE) OF PEOPLE'S PLANNING PROGRAMME UNDER ERATTUPETTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER P.S.MOHAMMED KHAN,S/O.P.P.SYED MOHAMMED RESIDING AT PARAMBUKATTIL HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. ERATTUPETTA BLOCK PANCHAYAT,ERATTUPETTA KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K. BABU FOR R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 2086 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed by the Panchayath challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge directing payment of a sum of Rs. 1,85,500/- being the value of work executed by the Beneficiary Committee headed by the first respondent. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant, counsel appearing for the first respondent and Government Pleader. 2. It is seen that the work was executed utilising the MP's Development Fund and it was guaranteed by the Block Development Office which provided technical support by providing the assistance of an Engineer. The cost involved was certified by the Engineer to be more by the above referred amount over the released fund. The Panchayath has requested the Government to grant sanction to it to release additional amount spent by the Samithy headed by the first respondent. Government Pleader submitted that no Government sanction is required for the Panchayath to release the fund. However, 2 after change in the managing committee of the Panchayath, they took the stand that Panchayath has no liability to reimburse the excess cost incurred by the first respondent in the construction of cause-way. The learned single Judge however held that the Panchayath cannot back track from their earlier decision and directed it to make payment against which this Writ Appeal is filed. 3. Even though Panchayath is not a contracting party, nor is it bound by any statutory provision to pay the excess cost incurred for the work executedunder the MP's Development Scheme, we find that the Panchayath has taken this as it's project and the construction as it's achievement. Further, the Government has granted fund for construction of approach road for the same causeway. In the circumstances, it is just and fair that Panchayath makes payment of the above amount from out of the development fund. W.A. is dismissed, but by granting another three months' time to the Panchayath to make payment without interest. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 3