Disposed

Venganoor Grama Panchayath(Spl.Grade) v. Sunil Justus & Others

Kerala HC20 Jun 2016WP(C)/27892/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an Ombudsman order concerning contract payments from a Grama Panchayat, the Court disposed of the matter by recording the Panchayat's recent decision to pay the contractor subject to authority clearance. This resolved the dispute presented.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of by recording the issuance of the Panchayat's decision dated 18.6.2016.

Venganoor Grama Panchayath(Spl.Grade) Vs Sunil… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/30TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 27892 of 2011 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

VENGANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH(SPECIAL GRADE), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,, VENGANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VENGANOOR P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.POOVAPPALLY M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR SRI.R.V.ABHISHEK

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1 SUNIL JUSTUS, JOSE BHAVAN PAZHAVILA,PARENIYAM,, NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 121

¶11

2. K.K.SASIKUMAR, FORMER SECRETARY VENGANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, N.S. BHAVAN,PALACHALKONAM,, KATTACHALKUZHI P.O.,BALARAMAPURAM,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 509.

¶12

3. SISUPALAN (ENGINEER), ATHIYANNOOR BLOCK PANCHAYATH,, MOOLAKKONAM,KUVALASSERI P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 512

¶13

4. C.PARASURAMAN, MEMBER,VENGANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,, VENGANOOR P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 523

¶14

5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶15

6. THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF, GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.NARAYANAN NAIR R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.PUSHPARAJAN ACHARY R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.V ELIYAS

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 27892 of 2011 (J)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT RELATED TO MINI CIVIL STATION

¶22

P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT DAETD 27.12.2006

¶23

P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 25.9.2006

¶24

P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.01.2007 OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER

¶25

P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.8.2008 OF SHRI. SUNIL JUSTUS

¶26

P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECISION DATED 27.7.2010

¶27

P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SUBMISSIONS DATED 05.11.2010 OF THE SECRETARY BEFORE THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN

¶28

P8: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2011 IN O.P.NO.1732/2009 OF THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN

¶29

P9: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 10.10.2011 OF THE VENGANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶31

R1(A) COPY OF SELECTION NOTICE NO.A427/6 DATED 19.12.2006 ISSUED BY PETITIONER

¶32

R1(B) COPY OF LETTER NO.3/AE/LSGD/VGP/06-07 DATED 27.9.2007 FROM 3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED AEE WITH K.P.W FORM 23.

¶33

R1(C) COPY OF LETTER NO.1/AE/LSGD/VGP/09 DATED 9.1.2009 FROM 3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO SECRETARY OF PETITIONER.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

sab

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

================== W.P.(C).No. 27892 of 2011

¶39

==================

¶40

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2016 J U D G M E N T

¶41

The prayers in this writ petition filed by the Venganoor

¶42

Grama Panchayath are as follows:

¶43

“i. To issue a writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit-P8 order;

¶44

ii. To issue a writ, order or direction declaring that, the 1^st respondent is not entitled to get any amount either part or full, from the Panchayat, related to Exhibit-P2 agreement and its construction works - Mini Civil Station at Venganoor;

¶45

iii. Further, to issue a writ or direction, declaring that petitioner Panchayat, is fully empowered to order to construct the building at their satisfaction; as per law;

¶46

iv. It is also prayed to issue an order or writ or direction to restructure the building in question in order to prevent leakage during rainy season;”

¶47

The afore captioned writ petition has been filed by the

¶48

Venganoor Grama Panchayath to challenge the impugned Ext.P8

¶49

order dated 2.8.2011 in O.P No.1732/2009 passed by the

¶50

Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institution, Thiruvananthapuram on the claim of the contractor concerned (First respondent herein) against the Grama Panchayat (Petitioner herein). The impugned Ext.P8 proceedings of the Ombudsman

¶51

: 2 :-

¶52

W.P.(C).No. 27892 of 2011

¶53

reads as follows:

¶54

“The petitioner has approached this authority with a prayer to direct the respondent to pay the sum of Rs.1,40,011/- which is the amount outstanding under the contract. The work has been completed and part bill has been paid and the matter is pending consideration on one technical ground or other. Now the grievance of the Panchayat is that though the matter was placed before the Block Level Technical Advisory Group. The project had not gone through and therefore the Panchayat after making necessary amendments will approach in DPC for sanction in order to enable the petitioner to get the amount. Now everything depends upon the decision to be taken by the DPC. Unless the project is approved, the petitioner will not be benefited. The petitioner is the person and the contractor who had completed the work and is running from pillar to post to get the amount. He may not be aware of the technicalities and therefore it is for the authority to consider that request sympathetically and take appropriate decision. So over and above directing the Panchayat to accelerate the matter, I also direct the DPC to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically as it is highly necessary and give the necessary sanction so that the person who has done the work will be entitled to the amount. OP disposed of accordingly.”

¶55

When the matter was taken up for consideration for final hearing, today Sri. Poovappally.M.Ramachandran Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S.Narayanan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, Contractor would submit that the Committee of the petitioner Panchyat considered the representation submitted by the first respondent contractor and had decided that the Panchayath will pay an amount of Rs.1,40,011/- [Rupees One lakh forty thousand and eleven only] to the first respondent contractor, subject to approval of the

¶56

: 3 :-

¶57

W.P.(C).No. 27892 of 2011

¶58

District Panchayath Committee [DPC]. The learned counsel for the petitioner Panchayath and the learned counsel for the first respondent contractor has made available a copy of the proceedings/decision of the petitioner Panchayath taken on 18.6.2016 deciding to make the above payment to the contractor, subject to the clearance of the DPC. The said proceedings dated 18.6.2016 of the Panchayath reads as follows:

¶59

“Rv°LjP¡ NYLokµLp¾]Rs 2006-&07 v¡xR¾ kÈf]p]¤ D¥RÕaO¾] ""o]j] y]v]¤ Sðx¢ j]¡ÚLeU"" IÐ kÈf]¨V 8,61,000/& qPkpORa Ið] SoãLp] Nkv¡¾] Ra¢c¡ R\áOWpOU è}.yOj]¤ ^ðyV, S^LyV nv¢, kuv] t, kqe}pU, RjáLã]¢¨q IÐpL¥¨V Raº¡ DrÕ]¨OWpOU fOa¡ÐV a] pL¢ 27.12.2006 ¤ kµLp¾OoLp] WqLr]¤ J¡RÕaOWpOU R\pÅO. fOa¡ÐV

¶60

CT NkvQ¾]pORa Part bill yo¡Õ]\ÿ 6,27,527/& qPk RRWÕãOWpOU R\pÅO. fOa¡ÐV mL¨] R\pÅ NkvQ¾]¨V 1,40,011/& qPkpORa RRlj¤ m]¤ 07.01.2008 ¤ yo¡Õ]¨OWpOºLp]. IÐL¤ NkñOf NkvQ¾] 2007&08 yLÒ¾]W v¡xR¾ kÈf]p]¤ y×]¤ KLvrLp] D¥RÕaO¾]p]Ÿ]sæLp]qOÐO. oLNfvOosæ NkñOf j]¡ÚLeU fQkÅ]WqoLp q}f]p]ssæ kP¡¾}Wq]\ÿRfÐOç WÚ]ã] f}qOoLj¾]R£pOU Aa]òLj¾]¤ yOj]¤ ^ðy]R£ 1,40,011/& qPkpORa m]¤ AjOvh]¨OWpOºLp]sæ. fOa¡ÐO NkñOf jaka]R¨f]Rq yOj]¤ ^ðyV fSÇw y~pU nqe òLkj°¥¨O Svº]pOç mzO. KLUmOcVyVoLj]¤ OP No.1732/2009 Bp] kqLf] j¤WOWpOU a] kqLf]p] SÓ¤ Rv°LjP¡ NYLokµLp¾V Cf]jLp] kÈf] fáLrL¨] DPC àV yo¡Õ]¨OvLjOU kµLp¾O yo¡Õ]¨OÐ kÈf] yzLjOnPf]SpLRa kq] Ye]¨OÐf]jV DPC àV j]¡SÇwU jä]pOU KLUmOcVyVoL¢ SWyV f}¡ÕL¨]. IÐL¤ NkñOf D¾qv]Rjf]Rq 10/10/2011 &Rs kµLp¾O WÚ]ã]pORa I (2)&LU jÒ¡ f}qOoLj NkWLqU mzO. RRzS¨Laf]p]¤ WP(C) No.27892/11&LU jÒrLp] r]ŸV Rkã}x¢ yo¡Õ]¨OWpOºLp]. fOa¡ÐO mzO. RRzS¨Laf]p]¤ jaÐ SWy]R£ AÍ]ovLh¾]j]aàV NkñOf kqLf] SWLaf]¨V kOr¾V f}¡ÕL¨]¨PRa IÐOç SWLaf]pORa vL¨L¤ kqLo¡w¾]R£ Aa]òLj¾]¤ CT v]xpU kµLp¾O WÚ]ã] v]whoLp] \¡\ÿ R\áOWpOU m]¤ yo¡Õ]\ÿ q}f]p]¤ ke]kP¡¾}Wq]\ÿ]ŸORºÐOç

¶61

AÐR¾ AE pORapOU SNkL^W›O fáLrL¨] DPC pORapOU AjOof]SpLRa fOW jäeRoÐOç AÐR¾ RyNWŸr]pORapOU r]SÕL¡Ÿ]R£ Aa]òLj¾] ¤ 2016&17 v¡xR¾ kÈf]p]¤ NkñOf fOW D¥RÕaO¾] DPC ¨V SNkL^W›O yo¡Õ]¨OvLjOU Bpf]jV AUY}WLqU W]ŸOÐ oOràV fOW WqLrOWLqjLp yOj]¤ ^ðy]jO j¤WOvLjOU NkñOf v]vqU mzO@ RRzS¨Laf]pORa èÈp]¤RÕaO¾OÐf]jOU SpLYU RIW|We V Sb|j f} qPoLj]\ÿO.”

¶62

: 4 :-

¶63

W.P.(C).No. 27892 of 2011

¶64

Now both sides submit this Court may dispose of the writ petition by recording the above said proceedings dated 18.6.2016 passed by the petitioner, Panchayat. In the light of the above said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner Panchayat and the first respondent contractor, the writ petition stands disposed of, by recording the issuance of the above said proceedings dated 18.6.2016 of the Panchayat.

¶65

sab ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

Venganoor Grama Panchayath(Spl.Grade) v. Sunil Justus & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venganoor Grama Panchayath(Spl.Grade) v. Sunil Justus & Others

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

K.v.Anandavally Vs State of Kerala

Lasitha.D Vs State of Kerala

C v Thankamma Vs the Project Officer

K.D.Gopalakrishnan Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority

Bhadran Vs State of Kerala

Prasad Vs State of Kerala