Kerala High Court
V.K.Basheer vs Kannur Municipality on 13 February, 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/18TH SRAVANA 1934
WP(C).No. 30977 of 2006 (K)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
V.K.BASHEER, S/O. LATE V.P.HAMMED,
P.W.D. CONTRACTOR, 'AMINAS', CHALAD
MANNAL, KANNUR-14.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. KANNUR MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (DP) DEPARTMENT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R1
BY ADV. SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL
BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC NO.30977/06
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF the CONTRACT CERTIFICATE PERTAINING
TO AGREEMENT NO.142/05-06.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF the GOVT CIRCULAR NO:3/05 DT
3.1.2005.
EXT.P3: GOVT.CIRCULAR NO.386/DPI/06/LSGD DT 3.1.2006.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DT 14.3.2006
EXTS.OF R1
EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE TENDER
CONDITION.
EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
AGREEMENT DATED 13.2.2005.
EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DT 11.1.2006 ISSUED
BY THE GOVERNMENT.
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
Rp
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 30977 OF 2006
===================
Dated this the 9th day of August, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The respondent Municipality had awarded certain works to the petitioner. Although payments were made, the Municipality made a deduction of `32,992 from out of the amounts payable to the petitioner. It is challenging that recovery and seeking a direction for its payment, the writ petition is filed.
2. Counter affidavit filed by the respondent Municipality shows that in pursuance to Ext.R1(c) Government circular dated 11/1/06, the Municipality procured bitumen from the open market and supplied to the petitioner for execution of the work awarded to him. According to the Municipality, the recovery effected is the amount which was expended by it for procuring the bitumen and its transportation.
3. In a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can only direct payment of admitted liabilities. In this case, Municipality is justifying the recovery made. In other words, Municipality is disputing the very liability of the amount claimed by the petitioner. Such a disputed question of fact can WPC.No.30977/06 :2 : be adjudicated only in a regular suit. In that view, no relief can be granted in this writ petition.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his grievances, if any, before the Civil Court.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp