Dismissed

Saleem v. District Collector, Idukki

Kerala HC29 May 2012WP(C)/2540/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Beneficiary Committee, successfully completed construction work entrusted by a Gram Panchayat but was not paid by the Panchayat as the District Collector withheld funds, citing lack of prior administrative sanction. The court held the Panchayat remains liable to pay the due amount regardless of the Collector's refusal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Saleem Vs District Collector, Idukki — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2012/8TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 2540 of 2012 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SALEEM, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. MYTHEEN, VAZHAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, VATHIKUDY, NEDUMKANDOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT .

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT.PIN-685 601.

¶11

2. VATHIKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,OFFICE OF THE VATHIDUKY

¶12

GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MURIKKASSERY P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT, -685 604

¶13

3. THE SECRETARY, VATHIKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MURIKKASSERY P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN -685 604

¶14

4. STATE OF KEALA , REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (DISASTROUS MANAGEMENT),

¶15

SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001

¶16

R1 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.C.JOSEPH

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

WP(C)NO.2540/2012

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

P1 COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.442/2011 DATED 25/1/2011 OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT.

¶23

P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12/2/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENTSECRETARY OF 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT.

¶24

P3 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC MEETING CONVENED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 28/2/2011

¶25

P4 COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE AGREEMENT (AVAILABLE WITH THE PETITIONER) ENTERED IN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

P5 COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.II B(1) DATED 7/9/2011 OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 14/9/2011 OF THE 3ND RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT/ DISTRICT COLLECTOR.

¶27

P6 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ITS TYPED COPY.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶29

R2(A) COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 10/10/2011 ADDRESSED TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

¶30

R2(B) COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 10/10/2011 ADDRESSED TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(C) NO.2540 OF 2012-N -------------------------------------------------Dated this the 29^th day of May, 2012

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

Heard the counsel for the petitioner, Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 4 and the Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

¶39

Petitioner is the convenor of a Beneficiary Committee. According to the Panchayat, based on the administrative sanction issued by respondents 1 and 2, the work of construction of Kalayithumkalpady-C.M. Center Nerchappara Road in ward No.XVI of the Panchayat was entrusted to the Committee. In fact the work was sanctioned by the Government including the same in the Flood Relief Scheme and it was accordingly that the work was entrusted to the petitioner. Ext.P4 is the agreement between the petitioner and the Panchayat which shows that the liability to pay the dues of the petitioner is that of the Panchayat.

¶40

Even going by the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat the work was satisfactorily completed by the petitioner and the final bill submitted by the petitioner for Rs.1,89,257/- was approved by the

¶41

WPC.No. 2540/2012

¶42

:2 :

¶43

Panchayat. It is also the case of the Panchayat that they represented to the Collector for allotment of funds for settling the bill of the petitioner. However, the Collector refused to such allotment on the ground that the work was completed without obtaining prior administrative sanction of the Collector. As a result the bill remains unpaid and it is therefore this writ petition has been filed.

¶44

In the counter affidavit the Panchayat has admitted satisfactory completion of the work. It has no dispute about the quantum of the amount payable to the petitioner and the only justification offered for non-payment is that the Collector has not allotted the funds on the ground that the work was completed without obtaining prior administrative sanction.

¶45

In my view, so long as the contractual liability to pay the amount due to the petitioner is that of the Panchayat, which fact is not disputed by anyone, the refusal of the District Collector to allot funds to the Panchayat cannot be a reason to deny or delay such payment by the Panchayat to the petitioner. If that be so, the panchayat has to settle the bill submitted by the petitioner and if at all there is an illegal refusal on the part of the District Collector, it is for the Panchayat to separately work out its remedies. Therefore the

¶46

WPC.No. 2540/2012

¶47

:3 :

¶48

Panchayat will have to pay the amount. However, having regard to the financial constrains now pointed out I direct that such payment shall be made by the Panchayat as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 months from today.

¶49

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶50

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶51

vi/

Saleem v. District Collector, Idukki

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Saleem v. District Collector, Idukki

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.v.Damodara Poduval Vs Special Tahsildar La

Dr. Raju Vs the Koothattukulam Grama Panchayath

Kider Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Rama Varma Club Vs Corporation of Kochi

D.Radhakrishna Pillai Vs Pallikkal Grama Panchayat

M/S.Palghat Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Kerala