Dismissed

Sisupalan K.N. v. the District Collector

Kerala HC18 Feb 2013WP(C)/2689/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging recovery proceedings initiated by the State against a petitioner for breach of a work contract. The court held the proceedings were legal, the contract was properly terminated due to incomplete work, and the petitioner was given an opportunity to object to the subsequent estimate.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the validity of the recovery proceedings and the estimate served on the petitioner.

Sisupalan K.N. Vs the District Collector — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/29TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 2689 of 2010 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SISUPALAN K.N., KETTIDATHIL HOUSE, EZHUKONE P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

¶11

2. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

3. THE SECRETARY, EZHUKONE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM.

¶13

4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶14

5. ANILKUMAR,

¶15

MEMBER, EZHUKONE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM.

¶16

R3 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS R1,R2 & R4 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 2689 of 2010 (I)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1:	COPY OF THE TREATMENT DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER IN K.N.S SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, KOTTARAKKARA.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THE TREATMENT DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER IN THE KERALA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE BILL DATED 28/09/2006.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE REPORT FROM DOCTORS DIAGNOSTIC AND RESEARCH CENTRE.
EXT.P4(a):	COPY OF THE WHOLE BODY SCAN REPORT DATED 01/11/2006.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30/06/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22/07/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE
EXT.P7:	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH AN ESTIMATE.
EXT.P8:	COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23/06/2009.
EXT.P9:	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 03/08/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P10:	COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/12/2009 FROM DEPUTY THAHSILDAR (RR), KOTTARAKKARA.
EXT.P11:	COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/12/2009 FROM THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KOTTARAKKARA.
EXT.P12:	COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 28/10/2005.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶28

W.P(C).No.2689 of 2010

¶29

¶30

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2013

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

1.Petitioner is the convenor of a beneficiary committee. The

¶33

work of metalling and tarring of the Marangattu PoikaCharathur Road in Ezhukone Panchayat was awarded to the beneficiary committee, of which, the petitioner is the convenor. According to the petitioner, executing an agreement dated 2.12.2003 agreeing to complete the works, he commenced the work and on 24.6.2004, received an amount of Rs.1,86,690/-. Subsequently, he abandoned the work and in a review meeting that was held on 24.6.2008, it was decided by the District Collector in the presence of the MP to re-arrange the work at the risk and cost of the petitioner, the convenor. Accordingly, notices were issued to the petitioner. However, he could not satisfy the authorities that it was not a deliberate default on his part. Thereafter, estimate was prepared as part of re-arranging the work. Going by the counter affidavit filed, the estimate was served on the

¶34

WPC.2689/10

¶35

¶36

petitioner on 11.6.009. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8. Further, notices were also issued to the petitioner and it was thereafter that recovery proceedings were initiated against him to recover the loss sustained by the Government. It is challenging this recovery proceedings, this writ petition is filed.

¶37

2.Evidently, it is on account of breach of contract committed by the petitioner that recovery proceedings was necessitated. While the petitioner contends that he completed a part of the work and that his inability to complete the balance was not deliberate, the fact remains that the work remains incomplete even according to the petitioner. If that be so, contractually, the respondents were entitled to terminate the petitioner and re-arrange the work at the risk and cost of the petitioner. It was accordingly that for recovering the actual loss sustained by the respondents, proceedings were initiated, which cannot be said to be illegal.

¶38

WPC.2689/10

¶39

¶40

3.Another contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that opportunity was not given to the petitioner to object to the estimation. That cannot be correct for the reason that estimate for the balance work was prepared and served on the petitioner on 11.6.2009 and therefore, the petitioner had opportunity to object to the estimation done. It was availing of that opportunity, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 and I do not find any substantial objection raised in Ext.P8. In such circumstances, challenge against the revenue recovery proceedings and the complaint of the petitioner regarding the estimation done are devoid of any merit and did not warrant interference in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶41

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶42

kkb.19/2.

Sisupalan K.N. v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sisupalan K.N. v. the District Collector

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

Murugan Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Manjayya Gounder S T Vs State Bank of Travancore

Shanil Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank

C.Gopalakrishnan Vs P.Giri & Others

Mrs. Mayble Jose Vs Mathew Francis Alappatt

Superintendent Vs Sajeeshkumar