IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 27613 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASHARAF K., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KHADER, RESIDING AT KANDATHIL HOUSE, PAZHUPATHUR P.O., MANDANKOLLI, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANADU DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SRI.A.V.JAMES SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (GENERAL), WAYANADU, KALPETTA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, AMBALAWAYAL, WAYANADU. 4. SULTHAN BATHERY BLOCK PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SULTHAN BATHERY. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SULTHAN BATHERY VILLAGE, WAYANADU DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 27613 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the steps taken under the Revenue Recovery Act seeking to realize a sum of Rs.33,543/- with interest and cost, allegedly due from him in connection with the work awarded by the 4th respondent Block panchayat to dig a 'well' in the property concerned. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is only a 'general worker' and in the course of implementation of the Kerala Development Project 2002-2003 of the 4th respondent Block Panchayat, the petitioner was nominated as the convener of the Beneficiary Committee. Pursuant to the agreement executed between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, a sum of Rs.17,500/- was provided to the petitioner as advance mobilization fund for commencing the work. But according to the petitioner after digging 12 meters, he could not continue the work as solid rock appeared at the bottom. Even though the factual position as above was brought to the notice of the respondents, the contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P3 notice was issued by the 3rd respondent seeking to realize a huge amount from the petitioner, at the instance of the 4th respondent. WP(C) No.27613/2009 2 3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the work was awarded to the petitioner for the estimated cost of Rs.70,000/- and a sum of Rs.17,500/- was disbursed to him as on 30.05.2003 as mobilization advance. It is stated that notice was issued to the petitioner, as the work was not completed despite the lapse of two years and 9 months and that the petitioner informed that the same could not be completed since he found rock at a depth of 12 meters. It was in the said circumstances that the recovery proceedings were resorted to for realization of the principal sum of Rs.17,500/- with interest and cost. 4. It is very much relevant to note that, as contended in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, pursuant to the representation preferred by the petitioner which was directed to be enquired into as per the instructions given by the Minister for Local Self Government, the Assistant Engineer of the Block Panchayat inspected the site and submitted a report; which revealed that the depth of the 'well' at the time of the inspection was only 5 meters; though as per the Local Enquiry, the 'well' was dug to a depth of 12 meters. It has been stated in unequivocal terms that the value of the work done as per the local rate was of Rs.18,141/-. 4. Obviously, there is no case of the respondents that the explanation offered by the petitioner that the work could not be proceeded WP(C) No.27613/2009 3 with on finding rock at the bottom, is not correct or sustainable. It is also conceded from the part of the 4th respondent that, the work already done by the petitioner was of the value of Rs.18,141/- whereas the amount disbursed to the petitioner was only Rs.17,500/-. This by itself shows that the petitioner has carried out the work to an extent over and above, the value he has already received from the 4th respondent. Since no lapse or failure has been attributed on the part of the petitioner in carrying out the operation, but for the natural/topographical/geological calamity, the recovery proceedings being pursued by the respondents invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act as borne by Ext.P3 cannot have any valid and legal assistance. In the said circumstance, Ext.P3 is set aside and it is declared that no further coercive steps are liable to be proceeded against the petitioner in respect of the transaction involved. The Writ Petition is allowed. No cost. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc