Kuttippuram Block Panchayath vs Kuttippuram Block Panchayath on 11 February, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Kuttippuram Block Panchayath vs Kuttippuram Block Panchayath on 11 February, 2008

Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 12818 of 2007(A)


1. KUTTIPPURAM BLOCK PANCHAYATH,REP.BY ITS
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,LOCAL
4. THE ASSISTANT CHIEF ENGINEER,BLOCK

                        Vs


1. KUTTIPPURAM BLOCK PANCHAYATH
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :11/02/2008

 O R D E R
                            PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.

                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                             W.P.(c).No.12818 OF 2007

                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                Dated this the 11th  day of February, 2008



                                 JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed by a contractor who had been engaged by the first respondent Panchayat for carrying out a road work. According to him, for execution of the work, he had to purchase Bitumen from Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

The amount which he paid as price of Bitumen to Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd was above the estimate rates. He relies on Ext.P1 circular issued by the Chief Engineer which to a certain extent justifies payment of excess amounts expended by the contractors for purchase of Bitumen to them.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Secretary of the Panchayat , wherein clause 3 of Ext.P1 is highlighted and it is contended that only those contractors who procure Bitumen on the basis of decision taken by the Panchayat will be entitled for difference in cost. According to the counter affidavit, the Panchayat had not passed any orders permitting the petitioner to purchase Bitumen on his own from the open market.

WPC.No.12818/07 2

The third respondent has filed a statement objecting to the prayers in the writ petition. It is contended in the statement that the issue should be governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement between the petitioner and the Panchayat. Petitioner has not produced any decision of the Panchayat permitting him to procure Bitumen from outside sources. In other words, petitioner is not entitled, in my opinion, to the benefit of Ext.P1 circular.

Writ Petition will stand dismissed.

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv.

WPC.No.12818/07 2

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court