IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 25866 of 2001(D) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.G.SAKTHIDHARAN, ATHIKUZHIKALAM, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION CIRCLE, CALICUT. 3. TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR. BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.42041/2001 IN OP NO.25866/2001 DISMISSED: 1.1.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.6.10.98 IN AS NO.386/1989 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. P2: TRUE COPY OF SALE NOTICE DT.27.7.2001 ISSUED BY R3. P3: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.13.8.01 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1 AND R2. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.25866 of 2001 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of cost of material namely, ten tonnes of cement supplied by the department for execution of lift irrigation work which was not carried out by the petitioner. Petitioner's challenge against cancellation of contract before the Sub Court and this court were rejected. Since petitioner has not executed the work, the cost of material supplied to the petitioner could be recovered. Since the amount sought to be recovered is only cost of cement supplied to the petitioner and there is no evidence to show that it was utilised for the purpose for which it was delivered, petitioner's challenge against recovery is not tenable. The O.P. is therefore dismissed as devoid of any merit. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms