IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 32003 of 2003(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.V.KUNHIRAMAN, S/O. RAMAN VELICHAPPADAN, PODAVOOR, P.O.PODAVOOR, VIA. CHERUVATHUR, KASARGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARGOD. 4. KAYOOR-CHEMENI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KAYOOR-CHEMENI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 5. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), HOSDURG, KASARGOD DIST. ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R4 R1 TO R3 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCKET SHEET FOR SANCTION/APPROVAL OF PROJECTS FOR THE YEAR 1997-98 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THEDETAILS REGARDING THE PROJECT OF KAYOOR CHEMENI GRAMA PANCHAYATH UNDER THE PEOPLES PLANNING PROGRAMME IN THE YEAR 1998- 99 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. E1.01 29/03-04 DATED 11.6.2003 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 216/97 DATED 23.9.1997 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 32003 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 revenue recovery proceedings whereunder he is called upon to remit Rs. 1,40,653/- which is the amount withdrawn by him for execution of work for the Panchayath under the Peoples Planning Programme. Petitioner was the convenor of the committee which took up the work of construction of a pond for the fourth respondent Panchayath under the Peoples Planning Programme. While the case of the petitioner is that he has done substantial work, petitioner has no case that the work was completed. According to the petitioner in three instalments he has received Rs. 68,750/-. Even though petitioner has made valuation of the work done by him, I do not think it has any significance because valuation of the work has to be done by the Engineer in charge of the work. Government Pleader submitted that the Panchayath has recommended revenue recovery which obviously means that the Panchayath was satisfied that the work was not executed in terms of the order and in 2 that event the amount received is obviously misappropriated. In any case since valuation report is not before this Court, I direct the Secretary of the fourth respondent-Panchayath to get the valuation done by the Engineer concerned, whether it be at the Panchayath level or block level Engineer or PWD Engineer within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and such valuation should be done by the Engineer concerned after giving notice to the petitioner and after giving him an opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter if the value of the work done by the petitioner is less than the amount withdrawn by the petitioner, then difference with interest should be recovered from the petitioner. Even though counsel for the petitioner submitted that recovery should be from the committee jointly and severally, joint and several means recovery can be made from the convenor or from any member of the committee, and so much so petitioner's claim cannot be accepted. I make it clear that if the value of the work done is insignificant or if the work done does not serve the purpose conceived, entire amount paid should be recovered from the petitioner and other members of the committee. If the work 3 done by the petitioner is more than the amount withdrawn by the petitioner, then respondents should pay the petitioner the balance amount in terms of the contract. W.P.C. is disposed of as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 4