IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4895 of 2009(G) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- IVRCL INFRASTRUCTURES AND PROJECT LIMITED, REGD.OFFICE AT M-223RT, VIJAY NAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD ANDHRA PRADESH - 500 057, REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, (PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION), OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, B.S.N.L., ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PROJECT MANAGER, JBIC ASSISTED KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PANICKER'S COMPLEX, CHERTHALA. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), CHERTHALA. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THANNIRMUKKAM VILLAGE OFFICE, THANNIRMUKKAM CHERTHALA. W.P.(C).NO.4895 OF 2009 G 7. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL FOR R1 SRI.BABU VARGHESE, SC, KWA FOR R2 & 3 R4 TO R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 4895 OF 2009 G -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P40 and P41 as evidenced by Clause 4 of Ext.P38. The prayers, inter alia, are as follows: “ii. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing Exts.P40 and P41 and the decision evidenced by Clause 4 of Ext.P38. iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to co-operate for the joint inspection on the basis of Exts.P20, P25 etc. and abide by the results of such inspection. iv) Declare by issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction that the petitioner is not liable to pay any compensation to the 1st respondent on the basis of the agreement between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.” There are further prayers relating to the irrecoverability under the Revenue Recovery Act, including without deciding actual WPC. 4895/09 G 2 damage. 2. Petitioner Company entered into an agreement with the second respondent for the laying of pipes in the area covered by Phase II and III from Thaikkattukara to different villages of Cherthala Taluk. The Project is intended to give drinking water to more than six lakhs of people. It is the case of the petitioner that digging is to be done by the petitioner by using JCB. The first respondent BSNL is alleged to have interfered stating that the cables were damaged, meetings were convened and decisions were taken. Ext.P2 is a tripartite agreement between the petitioner, the BSNL and the Kerala Water Authority. Clauses 3 and 4 being relevant, they are extracted below: “3. If local/OF cable is damaged on course of the work, IVRCL has to settle all the dispute regarding the claim in consultation with BSNL. BSNL will prepare the estimate in consultation with M/s. IVRCL (BSNL has to ensure the correctness of the estimate before sending it to IVRCL for making (4) payment) and raise demand note as per BSNL HQ instructions for damage vide WPC. 4895/09 G 3 letters No:110-7/2002-Regin dated 5th October, 2004 and No:110-7/2002-Regin dated 16-01-2003 of Jt. DDG (Regulation-1, BSNL HQ.Delhi (copies attached) to M/s. IVRCL, if M/s. IVRCL is not paying the bill within 30 days, KWA JBIC project will pay the amount to BSNL within 30 days by recovering the amount from Running bill at KWA Office, Tvm.” The revenue recovery notices, in short, are raised at the instance of the first respondent claiming compensation for the alleged damage done by the petitioner. A Counter Affidavit is filed on behalf of the first respondent BSNL. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, and also the learned Government Pleader. Exts.P37 and P39 are the Minutes of the District Collector. Ext.P44 is the Minutes of the Meeting held by the Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department. In short, it is contended that there may be a joint inspection. Of course, according to the learned counsel for the WPC. 4895/09 G 4 first respondent BSNL, as also the Kerala Water Authority, a joint inspection was already commenced on 20.9.2008. 4. After having heard the parties, I am of the view that interest of justice will be subserved, if a joint inspection is ordered to be conducted in the presence of the representatives of the petitioner, the first respondent and the Water Authority and under the watchful eyes of the representative of the District Collector, Alappuzha. In this regard, I take note of clause 3 of Ext.P2 tripartite agreement which, undoubtedly, contemplates the first respondent taking the petitioner into confidence in the matter of raising a claim for damage, if any, caused by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: A joint inspection will be conducted in regard to the various demands of the first respondent in the presence of the representatives of the petitioner, the first respondent and also the second respondent Water Authority. The fourth respondent District Collector will convene a meeting of the representatives WPC. 4895/09 G 5 of the petitioner, and respondents 1 and 2. No notice need be issued to them and in view of the urgency of the matter, the representatives as aforesaid will be present in the office of the fourth respondent at 11 AM on 10.03.2009. The fourth respondent District Collector will, after deliberations with the representatives, fix a schedule of the dates on which the inspections in regard to the various demands are to be held. The representatives of the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 will be present, so that the joint inspection is carried on smoothly. The schedule of dates shall be so arranged that the joint inspection should be completed within ten weeks from 10.03.2009. The representative of the fourth respondent will be present at the time of all the joint inspections. Should there arise any dispute during the carrying out of the joint inspection, the representative of the District Collector shall immediately bring it to the notice of the fourth respondent and further steps will be taken as directed by the fourth respondent. The costs will be defrayed by the party who was meeting the costs earlier. I also WPC. 4895/09 G 6 make it clear that the joint inspection which was already completed need not be reopened. The revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner will be kept in abeyance unless and until the inspections are completed as directed. Provided the second respondent will ensure that there are sufficient funds to meet the demands due to the first respondent from the petitioner, it will be open to the second respondent to release monthly payments. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge