IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4655 of 2010(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.P.MOOZA, S/O.KUNJALAVI, VADAKKINIYEDATH PULLATT HOUSE, IRINGAVOOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE PROJECT OFFICER, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRDA, MALAPPURAM. 3. CHERIYAMUNDAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O.CHERIYAMUNDAM, TIRUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDHAR, REVENUE RECOVERY TIRUR. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, THANUR. BY SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4655 of 2010(F) : 2 : APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.6.2009 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 2.2.2010 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(A) : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.11.2004 EXT.R3(B) : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.11.2005 EXT.R3(C) : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.7.2006 EXT.R3(D) : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.1.2008 //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.4655 of 2010-F ---------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 demand notice, whereby certain amounts have been claimed by the respondent, in respect of the default occurred from the part of the petitioner in executing the work allotted by the respondent Panchayat. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had completed the work and no amount is liable to be paid by the petitioner under any circumstances. 3. The Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit stating that the averments made by the petitioner are not correct or proper and that much of the works are yet to be completed. It is stated in para 5 and 6 as follows: “5. Now, the said road became unsuitable for transportation. So Panchayat has allocated Rs.4,60,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Sxity Thousand only) in total to complete the renovation work of the road in two reaches. Due to the pendency of this writ petition this respondent is unable to execute the work. 6. If at all petitioner is having any boanfides this respondent is ready to conduct a joint measurement by the Assistant Engineer L.S.G.D attached to the Panchayat or by W.P(C) No.4655 of 2010-F 2 Assistant Engineer, Block Panchayat Office. This respondents seek leave of the Honourable Court to proceed with the execution of improvement work of the road. “ 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is very much agreeable to the course suggested from the part of the Panchayat to have a 'joint inspection' and to have the liability fixed, if any. 5. In the above circumstances, the third respondent/ Panchayat is directed to conduct a 'joint measurement' as specified in para 6 of the counter affidavit, with proper notice to the petitioner, before further steps are proceeded against the petitioner. This shall be pursued and finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that till the proceedings are finalized, as above, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance. The rights and liberties of the parties concerned will depend upon the outcome of the measurement to be carried out as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ab JUDGE