IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 9330 of 2009(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- BABU.N.S, S/O. SANKARAN, NALUPURACKAL HOUSE, ANNAKARA .P.O VELUR, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.SARVOTHAMAN, MR.M.R.ARUN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SECRETARY, VELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O. VELUR, TRICHUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 601. 2. PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, VELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, VELUR.P.O, TRICHUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 601. R1 BY ADV.MR.K.B.MOHANDAS, MR.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL, MR.M.R.DHANIL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.9330/2009-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.87 (FORM NO. XXXIII) FOR THE EMD AMOUNT ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. 97 OF THE IST INSTALMENT OF BID AMOUNT FOR RS.8,30,800/- ISSUED BY THE R.1. ON 05/03/2008. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. I/08 DTD. 01/07/2008 OF THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT VALUED BY THE ASST. ENGINEER SRI. P.L. THOMAS IN RESPECT OF KIDAIPADAM RESERVOIR. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REGISTERED LAWYER NOTICE THROUGH HIS COUNSEL SRI. M.R. ARUN ON 14/03/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1: COPY OF THE ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE ASST. ENGINEER. EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. A2-407/08 DTD. 22/04/2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY R.1. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22/05/2008 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO R.1. EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 4/08 DTD. 27/05/08 OF PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE OF R.1. EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE ESTIMATE PREPARED BY SRI. P.L. THOBIAS. EXT.R1.E: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A2-40/08 DTD. 03/06/08 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR. EXT.R1.F: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A2-407/08 DD. 13/06/08 SENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR. EXT.R1.G: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. R-4423/08 DTD. 20/11/08 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR TO THE R.1. EXT.R1.H: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 29/11/08 TO EXHIBIT R1(G) GIVEN BY THE R.1. TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR. EXT.R1.I: COPY OF THE LETTER R-4423/08 DTD. 30/03/09 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR TO THE R.1. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.9330 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.There is a reservoir under the control of the first respondent Panchayat, which decided to auction off the right to remove soil from that reservoir. The intention was to deepen the reservoir for public purpose. The petitioner was the highest bidder. The Panchayat accepted the bid. But, learned counsel for the first respondent states that without executing a due agreement, the petitioner started excavation. On the other hand, the petitioner contends, he was not able to excavate the entire quantity in terms of the bid and that the quality of soil was not up to his expectation and it was, therefore, that he did not further proceed. He also states that there was no road access to the reservoir. 2. The ground realities in relation to such a contract work are matters for the intending contractor to appraise himself of, even before submitting the bid. One cannot, thereafter, turn WPC.9330/09 Page numbers round and accuse the Panchayat for the non-availability of access and other matters. 3. Be that as it may, in its wisdom, the committee of the Panchayat drew up Ext.P3 resolution, concluding the manner in which it would end the transaction with the petitioner. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the Panchayat to make payment of the amounts covered by that decision with interest. The Deputy Director of Panchayats appears to have not accepted the decision of the Panchayat and it was stated that the concurrence of the Deputy Director is not necessary. 4. While it may be open to the Panchayat to take a decision and act on it on the basis of its existence, powers and responsibilities in terms of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 following the 73rd amendment of the Constitution, it is not necessary for this Court to issue any direction, particularly when the relief sought for is in relation to settlement of rights and liabilities under a contract. Hence, while rejecting the WPC.9330/09 Page numbers request of the petitioner that a writ be issued as sought for by him, it is clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of the first respondent Panchayat taking such action as it may deem necessary on any request of the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P3. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.1/6.