IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 12818 of 2007(A) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- ABDUL RAVOF.O., S/O.UMMER, ORUVIL HOUSE, NADUVATTOM P.O., KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KUTTIPPURAM BLOCK PANCHAYATH,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,KUTTIPPURAM MALAPPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTEMENT,KUTTIPPURAM BLOCK PANCHAYATH,MALAPPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT CHIEF ENGINEER,BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,KUTTIPPURAM. R2,R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR R1 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.12818/2007 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 14/03/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER DTD. 25/07/2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 20/11/06. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD. 9/02/2007. EXT.P4(A): COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD. 10/02/07. EXT.P4(B): COPY OF THE INVOICE DTD. 14/02/07. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE Kss PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.12818 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by a contractor who had been engaged by the first respondent Panchayat for carrying out a road work. According to him, for execution of the work, he had to purchase Bitumen from Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The amount which he paid as price of Bitumen to Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd was above the estimate rates. He relies on Ext.P1 circular issued by the Chief Engineer which to a certain extent justifies payment of excess amounts expended by the contractors for purchase of Bitumen to them. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Secretary of the Panchayat , wherein clause 3 of Ext.P1 is highlighted and it is contended that only those contractors who procure Bitumen on the basis of decision taken by the Panchayat will be entitled for difference in cost. According to the counter affidavit, the Panchayat had not passed any orders permitting the petitioner to purchase Bitumen on his own from the open market. WPC.No.12818/07 2 The third respondent has filed a statement objecting to the prayers in the writ petition. It is contended in the statement that the issue should be governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement between the petitioner and the Panchayat. Petitioner has not produced any decision of the Panchayat permitting him to procure Bitumen from outside sources. In other words, petitioner is not entitled, in my opinion, to the benefit of Ext.P1 circular. Writ Petition will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.12818/07 2