IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22493 of 2007(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- RAVI, S/O. KANDAMUTHAN, CONVENOR OF THE COMMITTEE UNDER S.R.G.Y., OKARAPALLAM, THENARI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 2. SECRETARY, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES NEW DELHI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI DILIP MOHAN FOR R1,2 ADV. MR. P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL ADV. MR.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22493 of 2007(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF FORM 1 DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 7 OF RR ACT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 23.6.2007. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 10 DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 34 OF RR ACT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 23.6.2007. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 9.7.2007 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 22493 of 2007 ................................................. Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges revenue recovery proceedings whereby the amounts paid to the petitioner in his capacity as the Convener of a beneficiary committee, who undertook execution of certain works on behalf of the 2nd respondent, is sought to be recovered on the ground that the petitioner has not executed the work after receiving the advance amount. Petitioner's contention is that the petitioner has in fact done some work, the value of which would be much more than the amount actually received from the 2nd respondent. The petitioner's contention is that the respondents are not taking steps to measure the work done and to adjust the value thereof against the amount paid. In the counter affidavit the respondents categorically assert that the petitioner has not done any work at all and therefore they are entitled to recover the advance paid to the petitioner. I am of opinion that these are disputed questions of fact, resolution of which require adducing of evidence. The petitioner can do the W.P(C) No. 22493 of 2007 -2- same in a civil suit. Therefore without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek his remedies in a civil suit, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs