IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 6.7.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.1622 of 2004 M.Arumugam. ... Petitioner vs. 1.District Collector, Salem, Salem District. 2.Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Salem. 3.Block Development Officer, Attur, Salem District. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records pertaining to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.2874/98/A4 dated 16.12.2003 and quash the same and direct the respondents to settle the balance amount of Rs.2,84,000/- to the petitioner as per the measurement in the 'M' Book of the 3rd respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Selvaraj For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan, Additional Government Pleader ----- O R D E R The Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records pertaining to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.2874/98/A4 dated 16.12.2003 and quash the same and direct the respondents to settle the balance amount of Rs.2,84,000/- to the petitioner as per the measurement in the 'M' Book of the 3rd respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The brief facts for disposal of the case is as follows:- The writ petitioner is a registered contractor and doing work with the Attur Panchayat Union. He was regularly undertaking the development work under the fund allotted to the Members of Parliamentary Constituency Local Area Development Scheme and the Members of Legislative Assembly Constituency Local Area Development Scheme. In this regard, a tender was floated by the second respondent Project Officer for forming road between Eachampatti and Thalavaipatti. Petitioner is the successful bidder and he states that work was allotted on 12.2.1998. It is also stated by the petitioner that an agreement was signed between the petitioner and the third respondent Block Development officer, Attur for the above said work. According to the petitioner, he has to lay metal road with tar coverage both in the plain and hill area. Petitioner submits that the respondent department official directed the petitioner to remove the stones and rocks from the area before laying the metal road with tar coverage, which resulted in additional expenditure for which no amount was paid by the respondent department. Since additional work was entrusted by the officers of the respondent department, petitioner sought for more funds over and above the agreed amount. According to the petitioner, he removed the rocks and stones and laid a mud road. He raised a bill for Rs.6.5 lakhs. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.3,61,000/- was released leaving a balance sum of Rs.2,84,000/-. Petitioner made representation to the District Collector and the Minister for Local Administration requesting them to direct the authorities to release the balance amount. Petitioner also made representation to the respondents. On 23.1.2002, the Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Salem called upon the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Accounts Officer to verify the claim of the petitioner and give a report. Copy of such Memorandum was served on the petitioner as well. In that Memorandum, time has been fixed to submit the report on or before 25.1.2002. It is not clear whether the report has been filed as stated. Thereafter, on 16.12.2003, the Block Development Officer passed the impugned proceedings cancelling the work allotted to the petitioner in the year 1998. Third respondent, while passing the impugned order, relied upon the report of the Project Officer, the second respondent dated 6.11.2003. In the impugned order, it has been stated that based on the report of the Project Officer, a meeting was conducted on 13.10.2003 by the Committee and that Committee recommended the cancellation of the work. Pursuant to the decision of the Committee, the third respondent Block Development Officer issued proceedings cancelling the work order. Challenging the same present writ petition has been filed. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 3.2.2004. All the respondents have been served on 29.3.2004. No counter has been filed so far. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Counsel for the petitioner stated that while passing the impugned order dated 16.12.2003, which is challenged in the present writ petition, he submits that the impugned order cancelling the tender-cum-work order dated 12.2.1998 has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. No notice has been issued to the petitioner before cancelling the work order. He stated that the petitioner was not informed about the report of the Project Officer and the decision of the Committee which is relied in the impugned order. No counter has been filed to deny the contentions raised in the writ petition with regard to the plea of violation of principles of natural justice. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader stated that even as per ground (c) of the writ petition, the writ petitioner did not lay the metal road with tar coverage in terms of the agreement. Therefore, the order was cancelled based on inspection report. The claim of the petitioner is disputed by the respondent Department. He, therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition stating that the petitioner should seek appropriate remedy based on records and the nature of work done by him, if he satisfies the terms of agreement. 6.From the events narrated above and even as per the stand taken by the petitioner in ground (c) of the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner has not completed the metal road with tar coverage consequent to the high cost incurred in breaking the rocks and laying the road. It appears that a portion of the work has been completed. The petitioner claims the amount as per the tender-cum- work order. Whether the petitioner has executed the work in terms of the work order and the agreement and whether such work has been modified by the respondent officer should be decided in an appropriate forum based on records. This court is not inclined to go into the facts which are in dispute on the face of records. Except the averments made in the affidavit and reference in the various proceedings, there is no clear admission of liability by respondents. 7. There appears to be some reason for the Project Officer to call for verification by the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Accounts Officer in the Memorandum dated 23.1.2002. In such an event, this court cannot presume that the petitioner is entitled to payment of the balance amount as claimed in the writ petition automatically. 8. In so far as the plea with regard to the violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case. The impugned order refers to the report of the Project Officer and the proceedings of the Committee which resulted in the third respondent passing the order cancelling the work said to have been given to him in the year 1998. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner's plea that the above proceedings have not been furnished. The petitioner has sworn to an affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and stated that no notice was given before passing the impugned order. Even on the face of the impugned order, there appears to be no notice to the writ petitioner. The third respondent has passed the order merely on the report of the Project Officer and the Committee without an independent application of mind. Therefore, this court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order on the ground that the third respondent has passed the impugned proceedings in violation of principles of natural justice. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. It is however, open to the respondents to proceed in the matter in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forward his claim based on records. If no action is taken by the respondents, it is always open to the petitioner to claim the balance amount in accordance with law. The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1.The District Collector, Salem, Salem District. 2.The Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Salem. 3.The Block Development Officer, Attur, Salem District. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.29384 +1 cc to Mr.S.Mani, Advocate, SR.No.29230 W.P.No.1622 of 2004 RSY {CO} TP/16.7.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/