IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23864 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V. PHALGUNAN, BENEFICIARY COMMITTEE CONVENER, WORK TRAINING CENTRE, KUNNOTH WARD NO.1, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, RESIDING AT NIKHILA VILLA, NITTOOR, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THALASSRY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY S.C. SHRI I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 23864 of 2010-G - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner was the Convener of a beneficiary committee for executing a work at the instance of the first respondent Municipality. Presently, he is faced with action for recovery of an amount of Rs.85,795/- by the Municipality which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Ext.P1 is the copy of the agreement executed for the work. According to the petitioner, an amount of Rs.1,49,147/- was spent for the purchase of materials for the construction of the building for Work Training Centre and the entire materials purchased were utilised and no materials were left unused. By Ext.P3 letter, he had requested the second respondent to release an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- and the entire bills, vouchers, etc. have also been submitted. 3. Even though the work was started, it could not be completed so far, because of the dispute with the Municipality and the Revenue authorities with regard to the title of the property. The Municipality, by Ext.P4 issued a notice nearly after 10 years, directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.85,795/-, to which the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 WPC 23864/2010 2 reply. It is pointed out that the petitioner was asked to appear on 16.12.2009, but on that day no hearing was conducted. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submitted that a fresh hearing will be conducted and thereafter a final decision will be taken on the objection raised by the petitioner. Therefore, there will be a direction to the Municipality to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take a decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The recovery proceedings, if any, initiated will be kept in abeyance till orders are passed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/