IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 728 of 2006(P) ------------------------------- (SEEKING REVIEW IN JUDGEMENT DTD. 21/06/2006 IN W.P.(C).NO.34169/2005) .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/ STRANGERS: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. K. KOYAKUTTY, S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY, KAKKIDY HOUSE, P.O. MUTTANNOOR, VAZHIMANGALAM, PURATHOOR AMSAM, MATTANNOOR DESOM. 2. I.P. MUJEEB RAHMAN, ITTIKAPPARAMBIL PALAKKAL HOUSE, P.O. PUTHUPPADY, (VIA) THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.PREETHA, MR.M.PRAVEESH. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. K.P. PRASANTH, S/O.V.C.SANKARANARAYANAN, CHERUMADATHIL HOUSE, MUTTANNOOR P.O.,MALAPPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEX,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PURATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PURATHUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SECRETARY, PURATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PURATHUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. MR.C.V.MANUVILSAN, MR.P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN, R3 & R4 BY ADVS. MR.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, MR.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL, THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.728 of 2006 in WP(C).No.34169 of 2005-P = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009. O R D E R 1.This review petition is by two strangers to the writ petition. 2.The writ petitioner moved this Court seeking a direction to the Grama Panchayat to release amounts which, according to the writ petitioner, was due to him for certain works allegedly done by him. At the stage of admission, it was submitted on 21-6-2006 by the learned counsel appearing for the Grama Panchayat that the Panchayat is prepared to release the amounts due to the writ petitioner. This was recorded and the judgment dated 21-6-2006 was issued directing that the amounts be released with RP728/06 -: 2 :- interest at 6% per annum. That amount was paid to the writ petitioner. 3.Thereafter, this review petition is filed with an application for leave, which request was granted. Following that, this review petition was taken up for consideration. It is pointed out by the review petitioners that in terms of the audit objections raised by the Audit Wing of the Accountant General, the purchases made for the project in question were not in consonance with the Stores Purchase Manual and that the Panchayat stands criticized for the manner in which it has been carried out. It is also stated that the Rapid Action Force and certain voluntary organisations were involved in carrying out the work and the writ petitioner ought not to be paid the amounts. At the time of admission, since there was an apprehension as to whether there was any foul play in the matter, I directed the writ petitioner to place the funds in a fixed deposit. RP728/06 -: 3 :- It appears that there was some confusion regarding the availability of the petitioner in India and certain directions were issued to enforce recovery through the State machinery. Thereafter, the writ petitioner placed the funds which are now lying in a fixed deposit with the Bar Council Branch of the Dhanalakshmi Bank. 4.After ensuring that the amount is safe, it is noticed that the panchayat had replied to the audit objections and has given different explanations to the objections raised by the auditors. They attributed the situation of mal- administration to the absence of appropriate, qualified and competent officers and essentially, ignorance of procedures. The panchayat took the stand that though the Rapid Action Force and another voluntary organization were involved, they really did not do any work and the work of placing the pipe lines was done by the workers engaged by the writ petitioner. Different other RP728/06 -: 4 :- replies are also placed by the panchayat to the audit objections. 5.Reverting to the judgment sought to be reviewed, it needs to be noticed that there was no adjudication of the entitlement of the writ petitioner for any amount and all that this Court did was to record the submission of the panchayat that it is prepared to release the amounts due to the writ petitioner. That was on the basis of the unanimous decision of the grama panchayat. This Court also did not express as to what is the amount that is due to the writ petitioner. It has not given the seal of its approval to the amount claimed by the writ petitioner. The panchayat has decided as to what is the amount to be released and what was recorded was only that the panchayat would release that amount. All that this Court had imposed was the rate of interest at 6% on the amounts due. RP728/06 -: 5 :- 6.The materials on record definitely show the involvement of the writ petitioner in carrying out the work. The scope of his involvement, the allegation that there was voluntary contribution of work etc. are not matters which need to be gone into by the writ court. The panchayat admits that the writ petitioner did the work. The writ petitioner has been paid the amount following the judgment sought to be reviewed. Now, it is for the panchayat to give its explanations and rectify the audit proceedings, if needed and called upon in accordance with law. However, I do not find that it was a groundless submission on behalf of the panchayat on 21-6-2006 and it has no objection in releasing the amounts. 7.It is not for this Court to consider as to whether it was the writ petitioner who did the work through his workers or whether there was any voluntary organization involved in the actual execution of the work and if so, as to what is RP728/06 -: 6 :- the extent of such work. These are matters not falling within the jurisdiction of the writ court. At any rate, it is beyond the parameters for a review of the judgment, that too, at the instance of a third party. For the aforesaid reasons, this review petition is dismissed. No costs. The writ petitioner K.P.Prasanth will be entitled to encash the fixed deposit receipt placed with the Dhanalakshmi Branch, Bar Council Branch in terms of the interim orders of this Court. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/110209