Dismissed

Prasad v. Block Development Officer

Kerala HC14 Aug 2007WP(C)/2180/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging recovery proceedings for an uncompleted contract. The petitioner, who received an advance for constructing a river protection wall, failed to complete the work due to abandonment. The Court allowed the petitioner to pay the balance amount within two months at a reduced 6% interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted time to pay the balance amount with 6% simple interest per annum within two months; previous payment to be credited.

Prasad Vs Block Development Officer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2007 / 23RD SRAVANA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 2180 of 2006(H)

PETITIONER:

PRASAD, S/O. PAVITHRAN, MADHAVAMCHERIL HOUSE, KODOOKKARA, KULAKKARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI SMT.T.V.NEEMA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, VAIKOM.

¶14

VAIKOM BLOCK PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, VAIKOM.

¶15

ASSITANT ENGINEER,

¶16

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, VAIKOM.

¶17

DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), VAIKOM.

¶18

BY ADV. SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) No. 2180/2007

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

P1 : COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT ALONG WITH THE REVISED PROPOSAL DATED 10/02/2000.

¶24

P2 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASS BOKK CONTAINING THE ENDORSEMENT REGARDING THE OPERATION OF THE ACCOUNTS.

¶25

P3 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31/05/2001ISSUED by the 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

P4 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE BLOCK PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE BY THE PETITIONER.

¶27

P5 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12/08/2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶28

P6 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07/01/2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶29

P7 : COPY OF THE DETAILED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE AMOUNT.

¶30

P1 : COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14/02/2006 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 26250/-.

// TRUE COPY //

PA TO JUDGE.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶35

WP(C) No. 2180 of 2006

¶36

Dated, this the 14^th day of August, 2007

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of

¶39

the contract amount advanced to the petitioner with interest thereon for failure to execute the work. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The work awarded was construction of a protection wall for the river at estimated cost of Rs. 4,37,406/-. Petitioner, as the convenor of the beneficiary committee, was given an advance of Rs. 50,000/- on 28/06/1999. Petitioner’s case is that amount was partly used for mobilization of material which is rubbles. Since the work was not completed, the project was abandoned which was communicated vide Ext.P3 order dated 31/05/2001. Petitioner’s case is that petitioner is not liable to pay any amount because the balance amount is still in the Bank account. Petitioner has paid an amount of Rs. 24,930/- under interim orders of this Court dated 01/02/2006. Since petitioner submitted that some rubbles remain stocked in the site, this Court vide order dated 25/05/2007 directed the respondents to sell the same. Government Pleader submitted that, inspite of earnest efforts, respondents could not sell the item.

¶40

WP(C) No. 2180/2006

¶41

-2-

¶42

Counter Affidavit filed by the concerned engineer clearly shows that no work was executed by the petitioner except bringing of some quantity of rubble to the site. Even though this Court offered to appoint a Commission to examine the work claimed to have been executed by the petitioner, petitioner is not willing to accept the offer which proves that what is stated in the counter affidavit is correct. In the circumstances, I do not find any justification to interfere with the proceedings for recovery initiated for recovery of the amount advanced with interest. Since the project was later abandoned on account of change in the design required and the cost involved, there is no scope for extending time for completion of work. In the circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition granting time to the petitioner to pay the balance amount with reduced rate of 6% simple interest per annum for the amount advanced. It is open to the petitioner to dispose of or appropriate the stocked material. If payment is not made within two months from now, recovery can be continued. The payment already made should be credited in petitioner’s account and only balance will be recovered from the petitioner.

¶43

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)

¶44

Prasad v. Block Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad v. Block Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Empannelled Ex-Servicemen Welfare Associ Vs K.S.Sreenivasan, Chief General Manager

Aravindan Vs Oriental Insurance Company

Bhavani Vs State of Kerala

Accel Front Line Limited Vs P.P. Mohammed

K.Rajasekhar Vs State of Kerala

George Stanley Vs District Manager, K.S.B.C.D.Corpn.