IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 11562 of 2007(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- N.P.KURIAKOSE, S/O.PATHROSE, AGED 58 YEARS, NEELANGAL HOUSE, VENGOLA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE VAZHAKULAM BLOCK PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SOUTH VAZHAKULAM, ALUVA. 2. THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PROJECT OFFICER, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT,TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No. 11562 OF 2007 (B) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th June 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the Convener of a Beneficiary Committee. Ext. P1 agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the 1st respondent Panchayat for the execution of the work in connection with the formation of Mapparathupady-Eacharankavala- Mankuzhi-Pulinchuvadu and Sabaripadam road in Vengola Grama Panchayat under a NABARD scheme. 2. According to the petitioner, the entire work was completed by him to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent. In this context, petitioner is referring to Ext. P2, a completion certificate issued by the respondents certifying that the entire work was completed by 30.9.2001. According to the petitioner, despite all these, the final bill for the amount that is due was not forwarded and as a result of which payment has not been realised. It is on account of this, the writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the W.P.(C) No. 11562 OF 2007 -2- respondents to prepare the final bill of the work executed by the petitioner and to pay the amounts due to him without any deduction. 3. The 1st respondent Panchayat would submit that there were certain complaints against the execution of the work by the petitioner and that the Vigilance Department conducted an investigation and registered a case as V.C. No. 4/06. It is stated that in connection with the investigation, the entire files in relation to the work executed by the petitioner has been seized and as a result thereof, they are not in a position to process the claim of the petitioner. Yet another objection that is raised by the Panchayat is that on an inspection conducted by the LBS Centre for Science and Technology, certain defects were found out and on account of this, they are not in a position to process the claim. 4. While the aforesaid two reasons are projected by the Panchayat to justify the non-payment of the amount due to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit giving a different version. The counter affidavit discloses that there was a vigilance enquiry in relation to which, the records were handed over W.P.(C) No. 11562 OF 2007 -3- to the Vigilance Department on 6.11.2001. It is also stated that on inspection by the quality control wing of the LBS Centre for Science and Technology they found out certain defects in the work executed by the petitioner. According to the 3rd respondent, on being notified of the defects, the petitioner rectified the defects on 13.12.2004 as directed by the LBS Centre for Science and Technology. It is stated that the final bill was prepared by the Asst. Engineer of the 3rd respondent, on 16.12.2004 and the final reimbursement claim was submitted on 9.5.2005 and that the Commissioner for Rural Development rejected the final reimbursement claim as it was time barred. 5. Thus from the facts noticed above, it is evident that the 3rd respondent has no dispute regarding the satisfactory manner in which the petitioner has executed the work. This is also certified by the Panchayat in Ext.P2 completion certificate. He also confesses that the final bill of the petitioner was processed, but was rejected by the Commissioner only on account of the delay. If delay was the reason for rejection, that is not a reason which could be attributed to the petitioner and non-payment of the amount cannot be W.P.(C) No. 11562 OF 2007 -4- justified on that ground either. Although a vigilance enquiry into the works executed by the petitioner is pending, since according to the 3rd respondent that was not the reason for non-payment, I am not prepared to accept the case of the Panchayat that until the vigilance enquiry is over, the payment cannot be made. In fact, what the Panchayat contends is only that in connection with the vigilance enquiry files have been seized and therefore the Panchayat is not in a position to process the claim. Though the files have been seized sometime in 2001, the Panchayat has no case that they have taken any effort for getting the file back for processing the claim and for their inertia, petitioner cannot suffer. Whatever that be, now that the Asst. Engineer attached to the office of the 3rd respondent has prepared the final bill on 16.12.2004 the non-availability of the files with the Panchayat cannot stand in the way of considering the claim of the petitioner for settling the liability. Of course in the process of such settlement the Panchayat will be entitled to deduct if any amounts is due to it. 6. In view of the above, I direct that the Panchayat shall settle the claim of the petitioner in terms of the final bill prepared by the W.P.(C) No. 11562 OF 2007 -5- Asst. Engineer attached to the office of the 3rd respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that in the process of settling the dues, the petitioner will be paid only the amount that is admitted to be due and Panchayat will also be entitled to make deductions of the amounts that are due to it. Any such deduction will be subject to the right of the petitioner to dispute the same. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-