IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 10377 of 2002(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ADAYAPPADAM-PENGARA MOLAM IHDP COLONY DRINKING WATER PROJECT PEOPLE COMPAIGN, PROGRAMME COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AJITH M.N., S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 42,MULLANGORATH HOUSE, KINGINIMATTOM P.O., KOLENCHERRY. BY ADV. MR.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT), GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. POOTHRIKKA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POOTHRIKKA P.O. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MATHEW VADAKKAL, R3 BY ADV.MR.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO.10377/2002-I: ORDER ON C.M.P. NOS. 18377/2002 & 50324/2002 IN O.P. NO. 10377/2002-I DISMISSED 15/06/2009. SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 25/01/2000 IN FAVOUR OF R.3. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF R.2. DTD. 30/11/1999. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF R.2. DTD. 28/02/2002. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER HO(P).NO.218/98/LAD DTD. 23/10/1998. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF GOVERNMENT DTD. 29/06/1999. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 17/06/2000 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 28/02/2001 OF THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... O.P.NO. 10377 OF 2002 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, as Convener of the Beneficiary Committee, carried out certain works. The amounts due, as demanded, were not released. Certain amounts were retained. While deduction could be made towards taxes etc, the retention amounts have been held back on the allegation that work has not been completed. The petitioner states that the works were completed, or else, there could be a pro-rata release of due amounts. However, these contentions remain to be considered having regard to the manner in which Ext.P6 has been issued. Accordingly, the said decision is quashed and the writ petitioner is directed to appear before the second respondent, District Collector, so that a decision de novo could be rendered after hearing the necessary parties and ascertaining whether the work has actually been completed, since with the passage of time, it would not be in the interest of anyone to hold on the project any further. Let the needful be done within a period of six months OP 10377/2002 2 from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/16/6