IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 7967 of 2005(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.BHASKARAN, KEEZHUMANKATTIL VEEDU, AMBALATHARA, MANAKKADU. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.SASITH.M.R RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. G.THANKARAJAN, CHURALTHOPPU VEEDU, AMBALATHARA, POONTHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R5 BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU SRI.A.G.GIRISH KUMAR R1,3 & 4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SABU R2 BY ADV. SRI. N. NANDAKUMARA MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED 25.2.1999 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE FOR A SUM OF RS. 25,000/- BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.7.2003 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE FOR A SUM OF RS. 25,000/- BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.7.2003 2ND RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AGREEMENT G.O. NO. 36/98 DATED 13.2.1998 TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 7967 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of amount advanced to the petitioner and fifth respondent for execution of work under the People's Planning Programme. Admittedly, work is not executed in terms of the work order issued to the petitioner and fifth respondent. However, petitioner's case is that recovery should be against fifth respondent as he was the convenor. However, it is seen from Ext.P1 agreement that petitioner was the chairman of the committee and was jointly operating the account with fifth respondent. Therefore appropriation of amount is done by the petitioner and fifth respondent togehter. Therefore petitioner cannot escape liability by throwing it on the fifth respondent. W.P. is accordingly disposed of directing the fourth respondent to proceed for recovery against the petitioner and fifth respondent equally. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2