IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36757 of 2010(T) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ INFANT THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS, MATTEL HOUSE, MACHIPLAVU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. ADIMALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ADIMALI, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-685 561. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, ADIMALI BLOCK, ADIMALI, IDUKKI - 685 561. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, ADIMALI BLOCK, ADIMALI, IDUKKI, PIN - 685 561. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN R2 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.36757 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was the successful bidder for construction of Adimali Grama Panchayath Office-cum-Shopping Complex pursuant to the notification dated 16.4.2008. Thereupon, he entered into an agreement with the panchayath on 30.5.2008 and thereafter, work order was issued to him to complete the aforesaid work within fifteen months. According to the petitioner, the site was handed over to him only on 15.1.2009. On account of the escalation of the rates of materials and increase in wages, the petitioner found it difficult to continue with the aforesaid construction especially at the quoted rates. Subsequently, he approached the panchayath for getting enhancement of the rates that led to various litigations between him and the panchayath. In the meanwhile, the period of contract expired. The petitioner submitted Ext.R1(f) for getting extension of time for completing the work in question and ultimately that culminated in Ext.P5. As per Ext.P5, the first respondent resolved to grant extension of time by a further period of six months w.e.f 18.11.2010 and W.P.(C) NO.36757/2010 2 required the petitioner to renew the contract at the earliest. The petitioner is constrained to file this Writ Petition assailing Ext.P5 on account of the development that took place between the submission of request for extension of contract period dated 12.8.2010 and Ext.P5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was elected as a member of the Adimili Block Panchayath. According to the petitioner, the provisions under Section 35F of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act makes compliance with the directions in Ext.P5 impossible. Evidently, in terms of the said provisions, the petitioner who is a member of the Adimili Block Panchayath cannot enter into a contract with any other Local Self Government Institutions or seek for renewal of any such contracts executed by him prior to his becoming member of Local Self Government Institutions. Any such agreement would entail his disqualification by virtue of the aforesaid provision. It is based on the said provision that the petitioner contends that he is not in a position to comply with the requirements as per Ext.P5. Evidently, there cannot be any doubt with respect to the aforesaid position that any agreement executed for the purpose of extension of period of contract would entail disqualification of the petitioner as a member of Adimili Block Panchayath. At the same time, it is evident that the agreement in W.P.(C) NO.36757/2010 3 question was executed on 30.5.2008, much prior to the election of the petitioner as a member of the Adimili Block Panchayath. In view of the said position, it is up to the petitioner and the first respondent to work out their remedies in case they got any grievance regarding breach of the conditions of agreement executed between them on 30.5.2008, in appropriate proceedings. At any rate, they cannot seek resolution of such dispute in this Writ Petition. With the said liberty, this Writ Petition is closed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.36757/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.36757/2010 5