IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28231 of 2006(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- V.V. NARAYANAN, AGED 55 YEARS, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, NEAR KARIVELLUR MUCHILOTTU, PO KARIVELLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD. 3. THE ASST.DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, KANHANGAD. 4. K.O.V. GOPALAN, DY.DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, (RTD) GOKULAM, PO PALLIKKARA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. V.KRISHNAN, SECRETARY, KARAKKODUCHUNDA COCONUT PROTECTION COUNCIL, MADIKKAL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH R5 BY ADV. MR.T.K.VIPINDAS R4 BY ADV. MR.K.P.HARISH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 28231/2006-J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(MS)NO.222/94/AD DATED 30/07/94 FROM THE AGRICULTURE (PLANNING B) DEPT., TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 24/03/1997. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06/11/1995 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06/06/1996. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03/03/1996 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/03/1997 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/06/2005. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 09/07/2005. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/08/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/08/2005. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/10/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P11(a): COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.AD 1-10801/00 DATED 05/06/2006 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/10/2005 REPRESENTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/07/2005 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 04/09/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.28231 OF 2006 (J) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a retired Agricultural Officer. The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P7, P9, P11, P11(a) and P14 and to declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any part of the amount released to the 5th respondent pursuant to Ext.P2. 2. Ext.P1 is a Government Order providing for the implementation of the Scheme for Comprehensive Coconut Development Programme on area basis. Ext.P1 provides that the work sanctioned under the Scheme will be implemented by the Farmers' Samithies under the guidelines and supervision of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Joint Director of Agriculture with technical assistance from Executive Engineer (Agriculture) and Assistant Executive Engineer(Agriculture). Scheme also provided for payment of 50% of the estimated cost as advance and that the advance will be kept in a joint account of Assistant Director and the President/Secretary/Convener of the Samithi entrusted with execution of work in a local Co-operative Bank and that the amount can be utilized according to necessity. WPC.No.28231/06 :2 : 3. Based on Ext.P1, work of construction of a cross bar to Karakod Chundathodu was awarded to the 5th respondent and Ext.P3 agreement was executed between the parties on 24.3.1995. Subsequently, the petitioner took charge as Agricultural Officer of the area in question. On his recommendation, Rs.95,000/- was paid to the 5th respondent in 3 instalments. The work was not completed by the 5th respondent. Petitioner submits that he issued Exts.P3 and P5 notices, but however without any positive response from the 5th respondent. It is stated that by Ext.P6 he sought directions from the 3rd respondent to recover the amount but amount was not recovered. 4. While so he was transferred on 17.8.1997 and the petitioner retired from service on 30th June, 2006. Subsequently, by Ext.P11, 50% of the amount, namely Rs.57,500/-, paid as advance was fixed as the liability of the petitioner and on the ground that inspite of the demand to pay, as the payment was not made by the petitioner, Rs.2500/- each was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner's salary. Petitioner submitted Ext.P12 representation against Ext.P11. By Ext.P13 judgment of this court, representation was ordered to be considered by the first respondent. First WPC.No.28231/06 :3 : respondent considered the representation and rejected the same by Ext.P14. 5. Ext.P14 order shows that it was on the recommendation of the petitioner that Rs.95,000/- was paid as advance to the 5th respondent and the recommendation was made by the petitioner without assessing the work done. In this writ petition what the petitioner challenges is the proposal for recovery of Rs.47,500/- being the 50% of the amount released to the 5th respondent as advance, on the petitioner's recommendation. Counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that as is evident from Ext.P1, except that the petitioner was to monitor the work done, he had no other role in the execution of the work.. It is stated that no action has been taken either against 5th respondent who received payment nor against respondents 3, 4 and 5, who were responsible for the implementation of the scheme. It is therefore contended that the order fixing the liability on the petitioner is illegal. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. Among various contentions raised, it is stated that the agreement was executed with the 5th respondent on 24.3.1994, and that the work ought to have been completed before 30.6.1994. It is stated that the period for WPC.No.28231/06 :4 : completion of work was not extended thereafter and that long after the expiry of the period for completion of work and the agreement period, on 30.1.1995, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was released to the 5th respondent on the recommendation of the petitioner. This was followed by the payment of another Rs.50,000/- on 7.4.1995 again on the recommendation of the petitioner and acting upon a certificate of utilization of the previous advance issued by the petitioner. This was followed by yet another payment of Rs.50,000/- made on 18.5.1995, which was also supported by the recommendation of the petitioner and utilization certificate issued by him. It is stated that thus a total amount of Rs.95,000/- has been released to the Convener in three instalments on his recommendation and acting upon the Utilisation certificate issued by the petitioner. It is stated that petitioner furnished utilization certificates of the advance, without taking any part valuation with the technical assistance of the Engineering Wing of Agriculture Department as prescribed in Ext.P1. It is contended that the petitioner is liable to make good the loss caused to the Government. 7. There is no reply affidavit filed by the petitioner. 8. From the above facts, it can be seen that Rs.95,000/- was WPC.No.28231/06 :5 : released to the 5th respondent as advance as provided in Ext.P1. These claims of the 5th respondent were supported by the recommendations of the petitioner and also the utilization certificates issued by the petitioner. These certificates were issued by the petitioner without assessing the value of the work done with the technical assistance of the Engineering Wing of the Department as against the directions in Ext.P1. There is also no explanation forthcoming from the petitioner as to how he could make recommendations for payment in January, April and May, 1995, while the period of agreement itself had expired as early as on 30.6.1994. In these circumstances, the lapse on the part of the petitioner cannot be condoned. 9. Referring to Ext.P1, counsel for the petitioner contended that his role is that of a Monitoring Officer. It is true that in Ext.P1 there is such a provision but fact remains that he has recommended payments and certified utilizations of advance paid which were not really taken place. 10. If that be so, I cannot find fault with the respondents in saddling the petitioner with the liability to pay 50% of the amount that has been released as advance acting upon the recommendation and certificates issued by the petitioner. WPC.No.28231/06 :6 : 11. The other defence of the petitioner is that by Ext.P2, the 5th respondent is liable to make good the amount that has been received by him towards advance. That contention also does not absolve the petitioner of the consequences of the grave laches found against him. 12. Therefore I do not find any illegality in Ext.P11 order as confirmed in Ext.P14 for interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/