Partly allowed

T.P. Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Jul 2012WP(C)/8329/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contractor seeking remission for road closure-induced work delays filed a writ petition challenging rejection by the Government Director. The Court found the Government's rejection justified under the Rules but ordered the Director to refund the amount previously ordered by the High Court, payable in instalments with deferred coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Balance refund paid in six monthly instalments; coercive action deferred; penal interest waived.

T.P. Padmanabhan Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2012/2ND SRAVANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 8329 of 2005 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

T.P.PADMANABHAN, S/O.LATE KUNHAPPU NAMBIAR, THAVAROOL PUTHIYADATH VALAKKAI, KOYYAM POST, TALIPARAMBA TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, KANNUR.

¶13

4. THE CHENGALAI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHENGALAI POST, SREEKANDAPURAM VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS, SECRETARY.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR BY ADV. SMT.ARLISS TRENCY ANTONY

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 8329 of 2005 (N)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 27/03/1998.

¶21

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT 31/03/1998.

¶22

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT O3/04/1998 OF THE SECRETARY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT

¶23

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C1-2853/1998 DT 25/5/1998 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶24

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 13/08/1998 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶25

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 06/10/1998.

¶26

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 21/12/2004.

¶27

EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 16/02/2005 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXT.R4(a): TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF RESOLUTION NO. 124/03 DT 25/08/2003.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.8329 of 2005

¶35

Dated this the 24^th day of July, 2012

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Petitioner was the contractor appointed by the respondent Panchayath for collection and removal of sand from four Kadavus. The contract was for the period 19971998. In so far as, Koyyam Kadavu is concerned, according to the petitioner, the road leading to the Kadavu was closed during the period 2.05.1997 to 26.08.1997. As a result, he could not collect sand from that Kadavu.

¶38

Therefore, he made Ext.P1 application for remission and accordingly, the Panchayath passed Ext.P2 resolution allowing remission of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest. In terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Granting of Remission to Contractors and Lessees) Rules, 1998.

¶39

The Panchayath forwarded the resolution to the third respondent by Ext.P3. Third respondent forwarded the resolution to the second respondent by Ext.P4. Second

¶40

W.P.(C).No.8329/2005

¶41

: 2 :

¶42

respondent considered the matter and rejected the proposal of the Panchayath by Ext.P5. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioner

¶43

filed an appeal before the first respondent and the first respondent by Ext.P7 order, rejected the appeal. Following Ext.P7, Ext.P8 notice was issued to the petitioner for recovering the amount. It was at that stage, the writ petition was filed.

¶44

Although, it is permissible for the Panchayath to pass resolution for granting remission to its contractors in terms of

¶45

the provisions contained in Rule 5 of the Rules mentioned above, the Panchayath is required to obtain approval of the Government before granting remission exceeding Rs.10,000/-. It was accordingly, that the remission was sought for in this matter and was declined by the second respondent as per Ext.P5. The appeal against Ext.P5 was also rejected by Ext.P7.

¶46

In Ext.P7, it is stated that though the road in question was reopened on 26.08.1997, the petitioner sought remission only on 23.12.1997 and that representation, he had no case that he could not collect sand on account of the closure of the

¶47

W.P.(C).No.8329/2005

¶48

: 3 :

¶49

road. It is also stated that thereafter, petitioner made second complaint on 26.3.1998 and that complaint, among other reasons, one of the grounds mentioned was closure of the road. According to the first respondent, this very conduct of the petitioner disproves his claim and disentitles the petitioner for remission. Further, it is also found that the petitioner's representation did not make out a case for remission in terms of Rule 4(1) of the Rules, which talk about the existence of reasons, which are unanticipated at the time of entering into contract. In my view, the grounds assigned by the Government for dismissing the appeal cannot be said to be extraneous or irrelevant, justifying an interference at the hands of this Court in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶50

However, fact remains that apart from Rupees one lakh, the balance amount due to the Panchayath has already been paid by the petitioner. Out of this one lakh also Rs.25,000/- was ordered to be paid this Court in its order dated 14.03.2005. Therefore, the balance liability will have to be paid by the petitioner.

¶51

W.P.(C).No.8329/2005

¶52

: 4 :

¶53

However, taking note of the financial constraints that are now urged by the counsel for the petitioner, I direct that

¶54

the balance amount due to the petitioner will be permitted to be paid in six equal monthly instalments. First instalment shall be paid on or before 15.08.2012 and the balance amount on or before 15^th of the every succeeding month. Subject to payment as above, the coercive action initiated against the petitioner will stand deferred and will be initiated only if there is default in complying with the above. It is also directed that the penal

¶55

interest, if any, shall not be levied on the petitioner.

¶56

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶57

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶58

T.P. Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P. Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala Hockey Association Vs the Kerala State Sports Council

K.P.Alexander Vs the State of Kerala

Ajith Kumar.M.K. Vs Vaikom Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.1193

Issac Vs the Kerala Ombudsman

Mohammed Kunju K.B. & 29 Others Vs Eloor Grama Panchayath

C.P.Saidali @ Kunjava Vs the Irumbuliyam Grama Panchayath,Malappu