Disposed

K.S.Ibrahim v. the Meenangadi Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC25 Jun 2012WP(C)/4335/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners claiming partial work execution under an agreement opposed by the respondent Panchayath seeking recovery of advances. The Court held Civil Court is the appropriate forum for disputed execution claims. It disposed of petitions but extended an interim stay of recovery for three months to allow filing a suit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of; interim stay of recovery proceedings extended for three months.

K.S.Ibrahim Vs the Meenangadi Grama Panchayath — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/4TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 4335 of 2012 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.S.IBRAHIM, S/O.K.M.SYED,AGED 46 YEARS, KOCHALUNGAL HOUSE, MEENANGADI.P.O., THORAKKADY VILLAGE, BETHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE MEENANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MEENANGADI.P.O-673 591, WAYANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD DISTRICT, WAYANAD.PIN-673 121.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN

¶13

SRI.S.KANNAN

¶14

R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ABDUL SHUKOOR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-06-2012, ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 4968/2012 AND WPC.NO. 4987/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C)NO.4335/2012

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1 COPY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION ORDER DATED 10/02/2005 ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD.

¶21

P2 COPY OF THE TECHNICAL SANCTION ORDER DATED 11/02/2005 ISSUED BY ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DRDA WAYANAD.

¶22

P3 COPY OF THE VALUATION CERTIFICATE DATED 05/05/2005 ISSUED BY ASST.ENGINEER.

¶23

P4 COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.3475/2005 LSGD DATED 28/05/2005.

¶24

P5 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18/01/2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENTPANCHAYATH.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶26

R1(A) COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 9/3/2005

¶27

R1(B) COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE PROJECT DIRECTOR POVERTY ERADICATION SECTION, WAYANAD, DATED 20/12/2011.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)Nos. 4335, 4968 & 4987 of 2012

¶33

Dated this the 25^th day of June, 2012

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Petitioners in these writ petitions are conveners of beneficiary committees. They entered into agreement with the Panchayath for execution of certain works. According to them, they did part of the work and at that stage, Government issued order dated 22.08.2005 withdrawing the administrative sanction and directing to re-tender the work and that they had to discontinue the work. In these writ petitions what they say is that they should be paid atleast for the work they did and that the recovery steps initiated by the Panchayath to realise the amounts paid as advance should be stopped.

¶36

However, counter affidavit filed by the respondent Panchayath shows that according to the Panchayath after entering into agreement with it, petitioners have not executed the work in pursuance thereof. It is stated that it was therefore that they initiated recovery proceedings to recover the advance paid by the Panchayath.

¶37

W.P.(C).No.4335, 4968 & 4987/2012

¶38

: 2 :

¶39

If as stated by the petitioners, subsequent to the

¶40

commencement of the work Government ordered withdrawal of the administrative sanction and to re-tender, prima facie, this Court would have been justified in directing payment for the work executed by the petitioners. However, such a direction is not possible in these writ petitions for the reason that the Panchayath is disputing the very claim of the petitioners of having partially executed the work. In such a situation, the remedy available to the petitioners, in my view, is to approach the Civil Court by filing appropriate suit.

¶41

With that liberty, these writ petitions are disposed of. However, having regard to the fact that this Court has already granted an interim stay of recovery proceedings in pursuant to Ext.P5 in W.P.(c) Nos.4335 and 4987 of 2012 and Ext.P4 in W.P. (c) No.4968 of 2012, I direct that the stay will continue for a further period of three months, so that the petitioners can approach the Civil Court and obtain an appropriate interlocutory orders in the matter.

¶42

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶43

K.S.Ibrahim v. the Meenangadi Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Ibrahim v. the Meenangadi Grama Panchayath

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

Dinesh Mani Vs the Paravur Municipality

Yylvi Vs Cochin Corporation

K.a.James Vs State of Kerala and Others

Vijaya.K.Prabhu & Mrs.Meera Badreesh Vs v.Ramananda Prabhu & R.Santha Prabhu

M/S.Conconrd Advertisement Vs Manoj Joshy

Sukumaran P.K. Vs Dr.N.Ambika