IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13421 of 2006(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.I. MOHAMMED ASHRAF, S/O. IBRAHIM PILLAI, VELUTHAPPAN HOUSE, PALAPETTY P.O., PONANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT WATER RESOURCES (MI) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, LIFT IRRIGATION SECTION TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP 5633 OF 1992 DATED 20.12.2002 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 1.10.2004 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED IBRAHIM PILLAI DATED 28.2.2006 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18.4.2006 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS; NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 13421 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging the proceedings initiated for recovery of arrears due from his father who is no more. On going through the impugned order, I find that amount claimed is loss suffered by the Government for the lift irrigation work awarded to the petitioner's father who committed breach of contract by not executing the work. The work was awarded some time in 1972 and part bills were paid in terms of the claims. However, contractor later abandoned the work which led to reaward of the work at higher costs. Obviously when work was reawarded contract amount went up and the Government suffered loss. Even though I am of the view that Government is entitled to recover costs from the petitioner's father who is no more, I do not think respondents have taken timely action for recovery because work was awarded in 1972 and by the time proper adjudication was made, the contractor had died. In fact Ext.P2 order is dated 1.10.2004, that is more than 30 years after the year in which the loss was caused to 2 the Government. I therefore allow the WPC setting aside the impugned order for recovery of amounts from the petitioner, who is one of the legal heirs of the deceased-contractor. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3