Kerala High Court
Raghuthaman vs Agali Block Panchayat
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/17TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 18119 of 2008 (F)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
RAGHUTHAMAN
S/O. BHASKARA KAIMAL, NELLASSERRY HOUSE,
AGALI, WAYANAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.SIBY MATHEW
SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. AGALI BLOCK PANCHAYAT
AGALI P.O., WAYANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)
TALUK OFFICE, MANNARKAD.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.APPU
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. M.J.RAJASREE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 18119 of 2008 (F)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
-----------------------
EXT.P1 COPY OF THE PART BILL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITINER AND
SANCTIONED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2 COPY OF ORDER, SANCTIONING PAYMENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P3 COPY OF RESOLUTION No.32, DT.17.10.2000 CERTIFYING THAT
THE PETITIONER HAS NO LIABILITY WITH REGARD TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRIDGE.
EXT.P4 COPY OF LETTER DATED 22.12.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P5 COPY OF LETTER DATED 01.01.2008 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER
TO REFUNDTHE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE 15.01.2008
EXT.P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIION , DATED 14.01.2008 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P7 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25.03.2008 BEARING No.
G2-788/08/OGD.
EXT.P8 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 31.05.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
-------------------------- NIL
// True copy //
PA to Judge
das
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
===========================================
W.P.(C). No. 18119 of 2008
=====================================================
Dated this the 7th day of June, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was the convener of the beneficiary committee that was constituted by the 1st respondent Panchayat for the purposes of constructing a bridge on the Agali - Sambarcode Road under the People's Planning Programme for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99. It is stated that the petitioner had been sanctioned amounts by the respondent Panchayat in connection with the said work that was undertaken by him. The total amount paid to the petitioner was Rs.4,01,805/-. The last of the payments made to the petitioner was in 1999. In the writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P4, P5 and P7 notices that were served on him demanding a return of the amount of Rs.4,02,805/-, that was paid as advance to him, on the ground that there had been an audit objection with regard to the payments made to the petitioner, and a finding that the petitioner had not completed the work in accordance with the requirements of the respondent Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioner that, while on receipt of a copy of the audit objections he had preferred Ext.P6 explanation detailing the sequence of events that led to the receipt of various amounts from the Panchayat, and had specifically stated therein that he had -2- W.P.(C). No. 18119 of 2008 completed the work entrusted to him and that the amounts paid to him covered the amounts that were expended for the purposes of completing the work, there was no adjudication of the issue at the hands of the 1st respondent Panchayat pursuant to which alone he could be proceeded against under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, for realisation of the amounts demanded by the Panchayat. Exts.P4, P5 and P7 are impugned in the writ petition.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Panchayat, wherein the amounts that were disbursed to the petitioner on various dates is indicated. It is thereafter stated that, the local fund accounts committee had found that the work had not been carried out as promised by the petitioner and that the defense raised by the petitioner regarding the widening of the bridge could not be accepted. It is stated that hardly any work was carried out by the petitioner and that there is no entry in the M book regarding any alteration or modifications as contended by the petitioner. There is also an allegation to the effect that the entire funds were misappropriated and shared between the petitioner and the supervising engineer, which unfortunately was -3- W.P.(C). No. 18119 of 2008 noticed by the Block Panchayat only at a later point of time. The objections raised by the local fund accounts committee are sought to be justified, and the revenue recovery steps initiated pursuant thereto, stated to be valid.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that the challenge of the petitioner to Ext.P7 revenue recovery notice, which was issued pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5 communications of the respondent Panchayat, must necessarily succeed. It is not in dispute that, although the petitioner was given a copy of the audit objection and the petitioner had, in response thereto, submitted Ext.P6 explanation, there was no adjudication at the hands of the 1st respondent which fixed the liability against the petitioner. The said facts assume significance when the petitioner vehemently disputes the liability that is alleged in the notices served on him. In the absence of any ascertained liability, the revenue recovery -4- W.P.(C). No. 18119 of 2008 steps initiated against the petitioner after a period of three years from the date of payment of the amounts to the petitioner cannot be legally sustained in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and Others v. V.R. Kalyanikutty and another [1999 (3) SCC 657]. Under the said circumstances, I allow the writ petition by quashing Exts.P4, P5 and P7. I make it clear that nothing in this judgment shall stand in the way of the 1st respondent Panchayat proceeding against the petitioner for recovery of amounts due to it, after fixing the liability pursuant to a fair procedure and in accordance with law.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das /06.06.2016