IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21746 of 2006(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ROY PHILIP, S/O. PHILIP, VEMBALAYIL, VELLATHOOVAL PANCHAYATH, ELLACKAL P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.B.MANIMOHAN SRI.MOHAMMED SALIH. M RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. VELLATHOOVAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VELLATHOOVAL, ADIMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, DEVICOLAM, IDUKKI. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB R2 BY GOVT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STK WPC NO.21746/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE MEETING DATED 13.01.99 OF THE BENEFICIARY COMMITTEE P2: COPY OF THE DETAILED ESTIMATE PREPARED AND APPROVED DATED NIL P3: COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 20.11.2001 FILED BY THE PETITIONER P4: COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY BENEFICIARY OF THE WORK P5: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. V (D) OF THE VELLATHOOVAL PANCHAYATH DT. 01.03.2006 P6: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY 2nd RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P A TO JUDGE STK S.SIRI JAGAN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)NO. 21746 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of December 2011 --------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Convener of a beneficiary committee to whom the Vellathooval Grama Panchayath, the first respondent herein, awarded the work of constructing 100 foot-steps on the slop of a hillock. The total estimate for the work was Rs.1,06,000/-. An amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid in advance to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the petitioner constructed 40 steps in the year 1999 spending almost Rs.40,000/-. He could not continue the work in view of political bickerings among the powers that be. The petitioner requested the Panchayat to take measurement of the work done and to settle the petitioner's account. No decision was taken. Subsequently, by Ext.P6 notice dated 21/10/2005, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated for recovery of the amount of Rs.20,000/- given to the petitioner as advance. The petitioner challenges the same. The contention of the petitioner is that: the petitioner has not committed any breach of contract and the petitioner has actually spent double the amount received by the petitioner as advance for constructing the 40 steps. Despite a request from the petitioner, the Panchayath did not take the measurement of that work done and to settle the account. Petitioner's contention is that, even assuming that the petitioner is liable then the 2 recovery proceedings are hit by Section 243 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act which prescribes a limitation of 3 years for recovery. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction calling for the records of Ext.P6 and connected files and quash the same. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the Panchayath to pay the amount of work done by the petitioner in the representative capacity as convener without delay. iii. Issue such other reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the above writ petition.” 2. The second respondent has filed a counted affidavit. No counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. The learned Government Pleader submits that petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts since the petitioner had actually approached the Government for instalment facility to pay the amounts and obtained an order for payment in instalments. The same has not been stated in the writ petition. Suppressing the said fact and without paying the instalments as directed by the Government, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the revenue recovery proceedings itself, which, according to the learned Government Pleader, is a mala fide action. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in details. 4. I am inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner that 3 the recovery is barred by limitation u/s 243 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. The contract was given in 1999. The revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated only in 2005. The first respondent has not chosen to file a counter affidavit controverting the said contention of the petitioner. Therefore, clearly the recovery is barred by Section 243 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. Accordingly, the impugned recovery proceedings initiated by Ext.P6 is quashed. However, the amount covered by the revenue recovery notice shall be recovered from the concerned Panchayath Secretary who did not take appropriate timely action to recover the amount from the petitioner. Such recovery shall be initiated and completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Secretary concerned. 5. At the same time, I am inclined to penalize the petitioner for suppression of material facts. Counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner had in fact approached the Government and obtained an order for payment in instalments. He has not chosen to state the same in the writ petition. His only explanation is that, after getting the revenue recovery notice he was totally perplexed since after spending more than Rs.40,000/- he has been asked to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- without any fault on his part. I am not inclined to accept 4 that explanation. The perplexion complained of did not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the Government for instalment facilities. That being so, it is unacceptable that he did not mention the same in this writ petition because of perflexion. I direct the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Center within two weeks from today. If the petitioner does not pay the said cost and produce proof thereof the petitioner will not be entitled to benefits of the judgment and the same would stand dismissed. This writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE STU 5 6