IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 39860 of 2003(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.S. JOY, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. K.D. SEBASTIAN, 'THANSI NIVAS', SHOLAYAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KOCHIKKARAN HOUSE, AGALI, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. AND BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION (P) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD 3. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) ` TALUK OFFICE, MANNARKKAD. 4. SECRETARY, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, PALAKKAD. 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D., DISTRICT PANCHAYAT DIVISION, PALAKKAD. 6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. BUILDING DIVISION, PALAKKAD. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. SHIBU JOSEPH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 39860 of 2003(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER G.O.(P) No.218/98/LAD DATED 23.10.1998 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.5723/DP3/2001 DATED 6.2.2001 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.10.2002 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.10.2002 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 5.11.2002 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 7.11.2002 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPT OF LETTER DATED 7.1.2003 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECRTION 7 OF THE RR ACT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 39860 OF 2003 ......................................................................... Dated this the 19th October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the coercive proceedings taken against him under the Revenue Recovery Act in respect of the alleged excess payment of Rs.1,73,003/- stated as disbursed towards the construction cost of the Government UP. School, Sholayur under the plan 'Janakeeyasuthranam' 1997-98. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was the Convenor of the Beneficiary Committee, who undertook to effect the construction and the rate was fixed at the PWD rate as applicable in 1996. But the work was awarded and agreement was executed only much later , ie. on 12.06.1998 as discernible from Ext.P6. Considering the mounting cost in the construction field, the Government had issued Ext. P1 Government Order stipulating that, in respect of the work and procedure for 1998 -99, the market rate could be fixed by providing enhancement W.P.(C) No. 39860 OF 2003 2 to an extent of 40% of the previous rates, which benefit is stated as denied to the petitioner. When the petitioner was confronted with various notices asking to re-pay the sum of Rs.1,73,003/-, the position was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities, by filing various representations like Ext. P3, which however was not positively acceded to, as borne by Ext. P4. The subsequent representation (Ext. P5) preferred before the 6th respondent also did not turn to be fruitful. Though the 6th respondent sent a communication vide Ext.P6 to the Secretary of the District Panchayat referring to the claim put forward by the petitioner, the subsequent turn of events or the decision, if any, taken by the District Panchayat is not brought to the notice of this Court . 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner was recommended by the 5th respondent as per Ext. P8 referring to Ext.P1 Government Order and hence the petitioner is entitled to have the said benefit. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, referring to contents of the counter affidavit filed by W.P.(C) No. 39860 OF 2003 3 the 6th respondent submits that Ext.P1 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, which on the other hand deals with work and procedure related to '1998 -99' alone. It is also asserted that the work in question is in respect of the year '1997-98', which does not come within the purview of Ext. P1, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that there is material contradiction between the versions of the 5th and 6th respondents. While the former recommends the claim of the petitioner vide Ext. P8, the latter disputes the same in his counter affidavit. Despite the service of notice to the 4th respondent, no counter affidavit has been filed by the said respondent. Because of the diversity of opinion between the said respondents, this Court finds that the eligibility of the petitioner with reference to Ext. P1 Government Order needs to be considered by none other than the first respondent. In the said circumstance, the first respondent is directed to consider the eligibility of the petitioner to have the benefit of Ext. P1 Government Order in respect of the work in question W.P.(C) No. 39860 OF 2003 4 before finalisation of the liability or the steps to be pursued against the petitioner for realisation of the same. Final orders shall be passed after hearing both the sides, including the District Panchayat, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Status quo will continue till such time. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk