Disposed

Vengara Block Labour Contract Co-Op v. the Parappur Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC20 May 2016OP/6127/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the petitioner society is entitled to a proportionate reduction in the demanded arrears for the period between June 20 and September 29, 2000, during which it could not remove sand due to a stay order, without allowing a refund of amount already paid.

What did the court decide?

The demand for arrears made under Exhibits P13 and P15 is directed to be reduced proportionately for the period between 20.06.2000 and 29.09.2000.

Vengara Block Labour Contract Co-Op Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2016/20TH VAISAKHA 1938

¶5

OP.No. 6127 of 2001 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VENGARA BLOCK LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.586, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VEZNALAKKAL P.O., PRAPPUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE PARAPPUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POST PARAPPUR, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶12

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANOJ P. KUNJACHAN

¶13

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP.No. 6127 of 2001 (D)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶17

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 03.06.2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶18

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECIPT ISSUED ON 14.06.2000 BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY

¶19

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 29.09.2000 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER SOCIETY AND THE PANCHAYATH

¶20

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.10.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITOIINER SOCIETY TO THE PANCHAYATH

¶21

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30.11.2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶22

P6: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 22.12.2000 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIOINER SOCIETY

¶23

P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 19.1.2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER SOCIETY

¶24

P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2000 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶25

P9: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.01.2001 ISSUED BY THE GOVERTNMENT

¶26

P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 6.2.2001

¶27

P11: TRUECOPY OF THE LATEST REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE PANCHAYATH ON 14.2.2001

¶28

P12: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 15.2.2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.

¶29

P13: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE PANCHAYATH DATED 14.2.2001

¶30

P14: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.1321/2001/LSGD DATED 27.3.2001

¶31

P15: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE SOCIETY BY THE PANCHAYATH DATED 16.5.2001

¶32

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶33

R1(A) COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.3 DATED 14.2.2001 OF THE PANCHAYAT

¶34

R1(B) COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT NO.52167/C2/2000/LSGD DATED 23.11.2000 OF THE GOVT.

¶35

R1(C) COPY OF LETTER NO.A1/6/2000 DATED 24.11.2000 OF THE PANCHAYAT

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶40

O.P. No. 6127 of 2001 (D)

¶41

Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2016

¶42

J U D G M E N T

¶43

None appears for the petitioner when the matter was called for hearing.

¶44

The original petition was filed when the Panchayath came out with a notification to auction the right to remove sand from Kadalundy river for the period 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002. The notification, Ext.P12, provides for a disqualification insofar as the Societies who had defaulted arrears due to the respondent Panchayath. The petitioner's contention was that in the earlier year they had successfully bid in auction, but, however, due to an order of stay issued by the High Court, the Panchayath did not execute an agreement and the same could be executed only with

¶45

O.P. No.6127/2001

¶46

-2-

¶47

effect from 29.09.2000, when the stay order was vacated in an appeal filed by the petitioner Society and the Panchayath entered into the agreement, as per the auction notification.

¶48

The right to remove sand for the earlier period between 14.06.2000 to 31.03.2001, notified as per Ext.P1; was bid by the petitioner for a total amount of Rs.3,40,000/-. The petitioner had paid an advance amount of Rs.1,12,000/- and had to remit a further amount of Rs.2,28,000/- as per the agreement. The petitioner's contention was that the petitioner was denied the opportunity to remove sand for three months and proportionate reduction had to be granted for the same. The petitioner also contended that subsequently there was a stay order issued by the Panchayath on baseless allegations, which also prevented the petitioner from carrying on the operations during the

¶49

O.P. No.6127/2001

¶50

-3-

¶51

period of stay. Reduction had to be made for the said period also. Raising the above contentions it was contended that the petitioner cannot be considered as a defaulter and had to be permitted to participate in the auction to be conducted for the period 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001. The said prayer is infructuous and hence the same need not be considered now.

¶52

When the writ petition was pending, the petitioner was served with Exts.P13 and P15, demanding the arrears due for the period 2000-2001. The petitioner, by way of an amendment, challenged Exts.P13 and P15 in the above original petition. In C.M.P. No.10127/2001, the recovery was stayed directing the petitioner to pay 30% of the amount within two months. Since, neither the petitioner nor the Panchayath is represented at the time of hearing, it is not possible to verify whether such a payment was

¶53

O.P. No.6127/2001

¶54

-4-

¶55

made. If such a payment has not been made, the recovery could have been proceeded with and if recovery has been completed, then nothing survives.

¶56

However, in the event of the petitioner having complied with the order and the recovery having not been effected, the issue would survive. The counter affidavit filed by the Panchayath also would indicate that the agreement was executed only on 29.09.2000, though the right, successfully auctioned by the petitioner as per Ext.P1 notification, commenced from 20.06.2000, as is evidenced from Ext.P1. The Panchayath also had not executed the agreement for removal of sand with the successful bidder, only since there was a stay issued by this Court. The stay was eventually vacated and the agreement was executed on 29.09.2000. In such circumstance, it is only proper that the petitioner be granted proportionate reduction in the

¶57

O.P. No.6127/2001

¶58

-5-

¶59

bid amounts.

¶60

As to the contention of the Panchayath themselves having restrained the petitioner from collecting sand, it had been lifted as per Ext.P14, issued by the Government, on an appeal made by the petitioner herein. A reading of Ext.P14 and the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat would indicate that as soon as the Panchayat issued the stop memo, the petitioner approached the Government and the Government stayed that order, which eventually was set aside by Ext.P14 . The injunction against removal was operative only for four days, which is inconsequential and cannot lead to any reduction in the amounts due from the petitioner.

¶61

The petitioner also has other contentions with respect to the climatic conditions having prevented them from removing sand throughout the period in

¶62

O.P. No.6127/2001

¶63

-6-

¶64

which the permission was granted; which is inconsequential insofar as the bid made for a whole year would have been only after taking into consideration the vagaries of nature.

¶65

In such circumstance, the demand made as per Exts.P13 and P15, if the same has not already been recovered, would be reduced proportionately for the period between 20.06.2000 and 29.09.2000, when the petitioner was not able to remove sand as per Ext.P1 notification. It is reiterated that the above order would not entitle the petitioner to seek any refund of amounts already paid and the reduction would be made only if any further amounts are due after proportionate reduction directed by this Court. If no amounts are paid, then the Panchayath would be entitled to proceed against the petitioner for the amounts after modifying the demand as directed herein.

¶66

O.P. No.6127/2001

¶67

-7-

¶68

The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No Costs.

¶69

The Registry shall send a copy of this judgment to the petitioner and the respondent Panchayath.

¶70

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶71

jjj 18/5/16

Vengara Block Labour Contract Co-Op v. the Parappur Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vengara Block Labour Contract Co-Op v. the Parappur Grama Panchayat

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

Y.Jayamohan(Minor) Vs M.G.Uty., Rep. by Its Vice Chancellor

Kalavathy Vs the State of Kerala

P. Balakrishnan Vs the District Collector

P.K.Kumari Vs Patil Ajit Bhagawatrao

Yr.Haridasan Vs Uty. of Calicut

International Educational Trust Vs District Collector, Ekm