IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 23238 of 2006(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THOMAS JOSEPH, S/O. LATE THOMAS, PALLICHIRA HOUSE, PULIKUTTISSERY POST, AYMANOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE AT ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (AGRICULTURE) AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, PALOORPADY, MANGANAM, KOTTAYAM TALUK. 4. THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, AYMANOM POST AND VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY SECTION, KOTTAYAM. 6. K.K. ANTONY, KALAMBUKATTUSSERY, PULIKUTTISSERY POST, AYMANOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. 7. THE CONVENOR, THURUTHIKATTUKANDAM PADASEKHARAM, AYMANOM VILLAGE AND POST, KOTTAYAM TALUK. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW R6 BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN R7 BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO. 23238/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27.1.94 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT COMMUNICATED TO 2ND RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE PETITIONERS LETTER DTD. 10.7.94 GIVEN TO 3RD RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 2.9.96 OF 2ND RESPONDENT COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT DTD. 25.10.96 FILED BEFORE 2NCD RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S NOTICE DTD. 17.2.98 COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER. P6:- COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT DTD. 24.1.99 FILED BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 24.11.05 IN OP. 2561/99 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. P8:- COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S STATEMENT DTD. 2.6.06 SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH COPY OF LETTER DTD. 31.10.96 OF LETTER DTD. 31.10.96 OF 6TH RESPONDENT ISSUED TO PETITIONER. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A-34/06 DT.D 15.6.06 OF 2ND RESPONDENT COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R2(a):- AGREEMENT NO.44/03-94 DTD. 16.8.1993. R6(A):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 6.10.1994 SENT BY SECRETARY AND NOMINEE, SHRI V.N.GOPALAN NAIR TO THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. R6(B):- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 18.3.1996. R6(C):- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 10.4.1994. R6(D):- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 14.5.94. R6(E):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 13.6.2006 SENT BY 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE , ETTUMANOOR. R6(F):- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 29.8.2006 IN WP(C) 23238/06. R6(G):- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A/34/06 9.1.2007 TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE tss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 23238 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the President of the Thuruthikkattukandam Nellulpadaka samithy of Thuruthikkattukandam padasekharam during 1994-95. The 6th respondent was the convenor of the padasekharam during that period. Both the petitioner and the 6th respondent are cultivators of the said padasekharam. In 1994, the 2nd respondent sanctioned some funds from the Prime Minister's scheme for strengthening the outer bund of the padasekharam. The petitioner was elected as the nominee of the samithy to execute the works under the above scheme. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent released Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner. From the said amounts, the petitioner claims to have spent Rs. 6000/- for bringing materials like metals and sand to the construction site. According to the petitioner, since some members of the samithy obstructed the work, the petitioner was forced to abandon the work. Consequently, the materials brought to the site are stated to have been lost during the monsoon flood of 1994. The petitioner alleges that the 3rd respondent did not prepare any valuation certificate regarding the materials stated to have been brought by the petitioner to the work site. In the meantime, the outer bund of the padasekharam was breached during the monsoon floods of 1994. The members of the samithy decided to spend Rs. 10,000/- for repair of the broken bund. Out of the amounts released to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner advanced an amount of Rs. 10,000/- W.P(C) No. 23238 of 2006 -: 2 :- for the said purpose with the condition that the amount shall be refunded upon receipt of any financial assistance from the State Government towards the repair of the bund. According to the petitioner, subsequently, the 6th respondent received Rs. 16,000/- from the Government towards financial assistance for repairing the bund. But the 6th respondent did not refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner filed Ext.P4 complaint before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner alleges that no action was taken on that complaint. Subsequently, respondents 2 and 5 initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of the said amount of Rs.30,000/- with interest. The petitioner filed O.P.No. 2561/1999 challenging the same and obtained an interim order of stay on condition that the petitioner remits Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner paid the said amount of Rs.10,000/-. Subsequently, by Ext.P7 judgment, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 within four months. A personal hearing was conducted by the 2nd respondent on 2.6.2000. The petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent and submitted Ext.P8 statement objecting to the recovery of the entire amount from him, taking the stand that the 6th respondent is liable to pay Rs.10,000/- and the petitioner is entitled to credit for Rs.6,000/- already spent for the purpose for which the money was sanctioned. But the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P9 order holding that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 20,000/- with 12% penal interest. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: W.P(C) No. 23238 of 2006 -: 3 :- “i. to declare that Ext.P9 order of 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 20,000/- along with 12% penal interest from 10.8.94 is highly illegal, arbitrary and unjust; ii. to call for the records leading to Ext.P9 order and quash it by the issuance of a writ of certiorari; iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents 6 and 7 directing them to remit Rs. 10,000/- in the office of the 2nd respondent along with necessary interest from 10.8.94 till payment, towards arrears demanded in Ext.P9 order.” 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent. 3. As far as the recovery proceedings are concerned, I am of opinion that the petitioner is bound to account for the amount received by him from the 2nd respondent. As far as the amount of Rs.10,000/- paid to the 6th respondent is concerned, that is a private transaction between the petitioner on the one hand and the members of the samithy on the other, which cannot bind the 2nd respondent in any manner, especially since no sanction has been obtained from the 2nd respondent for the same. As far as the claim of the petitioner that he has spent Rs.6000/- is concerned, there is no material on record to prove the same. As such, I am not inclined to accept the averments in the petition to the effect that Rs. 6,000/- has been spent by the petitioner out of Rs. 30,000/- for the purpose for which the amount was released to the petitioner. In such circumstances , I am not inclined to interfere with the recovery proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent for recovery of the balance amount accountable by the petitioner insofar as admittedly that amount has not been used for the purpose for which W.P(C) No. 23238 of 2006 -: 4 :- the amount has been released to the petitioner. 4. But, the petitioner has produced Ext.P8 letter from the 6th respondent, wherein the 6th respondent admits having received Rs. 10,000/- By Ext.P8, he has also agreed that he is prepared to pay Rs. 10,000/- with 15% interest thereon. But, in this writ petition, the 6th respondent has taken a cantankerous stand disclaiming any liability to repay the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner. Although that transaction cannot bind the 2nd respondent in any way in the matter of recovery of the amounts paid to the petitioner, I feel that because of the cantankerous attitude of the 6th respondent, the 6th respondent should pay costs to the petitioner in this writ petition. 5. Accordingly, while dismissing the writ petition I direct the 6th respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as costs of this writ petition to the petitioner. The costs shall be paid within one month. However, I make it clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner recovering the amount of Rs. 10,000/- due from the 6th respondent by resorting to other remedies. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the above direction. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/