IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 3861 of 2006(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, PULIKKOTHKONATH PUTHEN VEEDU, ANAD P.O., NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL(WM), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), NEDUMANGAD. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SMT.SMITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.3861/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 13/02/1998. P2 : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 25/08/2001. P3 : COPY OF LETTER ALONG with the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 29/09/2001. P4 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28/01/2002. P5 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15/10/2005. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3861 of 2006 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 7th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 recovery proceedings for recovery of rupees one lakh advanced to him for execution of irrigation work under the Samagra Nelkrishi Vikasana Project pursuant to Ext.P1 agreement. Learned Government Pleader submitted that even though work is not completed, Engineer concerned certified the value of the work executed by petitioner at Rs.1,49,000/-. If petitioner has done the work for the value more than the amount advanced to him, then there is no scope for recovery. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing 2nd respondent to settle the account of the petitioner in terms of the tender conditions and based on the valuation report submitted by the Engineer concerned on production of copy of the judgment by petitioner. Recovery will be continued only if 2nd respondent recommends recovery for any amount advanced to petitioner that was not utilised in the construction. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg