The Kerala High Court directed the Ambalappuzha North Grama Panchayat to proceed against a contractor for failing to complete a road maintenance agreement and to make alternate arrangements for completion.
The Panchayat shall proceed against the contractor for failure to complete the work and make necessary alternate arrangements for completion.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/29TH JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No. 4768 of 2012 (U)
PETITIONERS:
1. K.KESAVAN, AGED 83 YEARS S/O.LATE KRISHNANKUTTY RAJESH BHAVANAM KANJIPPADAM P.O,AMBALAPPUZHA NORTH ALAPPUZHA DIST
2. ABRAHAM OUSEPH, THOTTUKADAVU, KANJIPPADAM P.O.,AMABALAPPURAM NORTH ALAPPUZHA DIST
BY ADVS.SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA
2. THE COMMISSIONER RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERATE, L.M.S COMPOUND THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA
4. THE SECRTARY AMBALAPPUZHA BLOCK PANCHAYATH, AMBALAPPUZHA ALAPPUZHA DIST-
5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, AMABALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DIST
WPC 4768/2012 (U)
6. THE SECRETARY AMABALAPPUZHA NORTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPECIAL GRADE)AMBALAPPUZHA NORTH P.O. ALAPPUZHA DIST
7. C.MADHAVAN, PUTHUSERRY, CHEMBUPURAM P.O.,ALAPPUZHA DIST
R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW BY ADV. SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN BY ADV. SRI.DIPU JAMES
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALY HEARD ON 19-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BP
WPC 4768/2012 (U)
APPENDIX
PETITIONR'S EXHIBITS:
| EXT.P1:- | TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE SAID ROAD |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2:- |
TRUE COPYOF THE LETTER DTD 3/3/2010 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE IST RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P3:- |
TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD 22/3/2010 ALONG WITH THE DETAILS EVIDENCING THE ESTIMATE OF THESAID WORK ISSUED by the 6TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P4:- |
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 17/4/2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P5:- |
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTAITON DTD 17/4/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P6:- |
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTAITON DTD 17/4/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P7:- |
TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 5/5/2010 ISSUED BY THE STATE INFORMATION OFFICER. |
| EXT.P8:- |
TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATIN DTD 15/6/2010 UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT |
| EXT.P9:- | TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD 10/6/2010 |
| EXT.P10:- |
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIN DTD 24/5/2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P11:- |
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 29/5/2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER. |
| EXT.P12:- | TRUE COPYOF THE REPLY DTD 29/6/2010 |
| EXT.P13:- |
TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD 23/6/2010 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P14:- RESPONDE |
TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD 12/7/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. NT' S EXHIBITS : NIL |
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
BP
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 4768 OF 2012
===================
Dated this the 19th day of June, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners claim to be residents of 8th Ward of Ambalappuzha North Grama Panchayat. There is a road by name Nalu Padasekharam Bund road in their ward. That road is vested in the respondent Panchayat. Their grievance is regarding the failure of the respondent Panchayat in maintaining the road. According to the petitioners, as early as on 4/1/2009, an agreement was executed between the 6th and 7th respondents for maintenance of the road. It is stated that though substantial part of the amount earmarked has been spent, inspite of the expiry of the period of completion as early as on 5/6/2010, the work is still remaining incomplete. They made Ext.P10 representation to the Panchayat and the other authorities and even that representation remains unattended. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed.
:2 :
WPC.No.4768/12
Committee, who has undertook the work and is alleged to have committed breach of contract. Facts pleaded by the petitioners show that Panchayat had entrusted the work of maintenance of the road to the 7th respondent. An agreement was also executed between the parties. The period of the agreement expired on 5/6/2010 and the Panchayat also confirms that the work is remaining incomplete. In such a situation, one would expect the Panchayat to take action against the contractor, if he has committed breach of contract. Evidently, such a step does not appear to have been taken by the Panchayat.
In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the Panchayat shall proceed against the contractor or his nominee for failure on his part in completing the work and if necessary, will make alternate arrangements for getting the work completed on an expeditious basis.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent Grama Panchayat has failed in its duty to complete the road maintenance work contracted with the beneficiary convener.
Whether the Panchayat must initiate proceedings against the contractor for breach of the completion agreement.
K. KESAVAN
ABRAHAM OUSEPH
STATE OF KERALA
COMMISSIONER RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERATE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA
SECRETARY AMBALAPPUZHA BLOCK PANCHAYATH
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
