IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16316 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- ROY VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE, AGED 40 THADIKATTIL VEEDU, AMBOORI. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. SECRETARY, AMBOORI PANCHAYATH ,AMBOORI. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TAHSILDAR, (RR) REVENUE RECOVERY, NEYYATTINKARA. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 16316 OF 2008 P ==================== Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that he was the Convener of two works. According to him, though delay was caused in the completion of the work, that was not for reasons attributable to him. It is stated that in the meanwhile revenue recovery proceedings were initiated by the Panchayat and while so, the petitioner resumed the work and completed the same. 2. Petitioner submits that Exts. P3 and P4 are the final bills that were duly certified and submitted for payment. While he was awaiting payment based on Exts. P3 and P4 final bills, on the requisition that was earlier issued by the Panchayat for recovering the advance paid to the petitioner, Ext.P5 recovery notice was issued proposing sale of the immovable properties of the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner moved the Government and Ext.P6 order was passed granting stay on condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the dues and that has been paid by the petitioner. He is referring to Ext.P7 to prove that this payment has been made. 3. Now this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 and WPC 16316/08 :2 : contending that no amount is due to be recovered as proposed and that it is impermissible for the Panchayat to initiate revenue recovery proceedings as such. 4. In my view, if the petitioner has a case that he has executed the work in full and that money is in fact due to him in terms of Exts. P3 and P4 bills, it is for the petitioner to move the Panchayat itself and seek to get the requisition issued by them withdrawn. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner has taken that course of action. In view of this, giving liberty to the petitioner to move the respondent Panchayat for recalling the requisition on the basis of which Ext.P5 revenue recovery notice has been issued, this writ petition is disposed of. Needless to say that if such a representation is received from the petitioner, the Panchayat has to take expeditious decision so that further continuance of revenue recovery proceedings can be stopped. In case if the decision taken on the representation is favourable to the petitioner, it would also be open to the petitioner to claim the payment of the amount that he has made in compliance with the conditions imposed by the Government in terms of Ext.P6. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp