Dismissed

The Kuttippuram Grama Panchayath v. Welfare Services Ernakulam

Kerala HC8 Mar 2021RP/126/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed a review petition filed by a Grama Panchayath challenging an order directing a meeting to settle unpaid bills for completed water supply work, holding there was no error apparent on the face of the records.

What did the court decide?

Review Petition dismissed with the finding that there is no error apparent on the face of the records to warrant a review of the impugned judgment.

The Kuttippuram Grama Panchayath Vs Welfare… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

RP.No.126 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 12801/2020

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2020 IN

¶7

WP(C) 12801/2020(A) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT IN WRIT PETITION:

¶9

THE KUTTIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUTTIPPURAM P. O., MALAPPURAM - 676 506.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WRIT PETITION:

¶12

1 WELFARE SERVICES ERNAKULAM (REG.NO.ER-32/65),

¶13

PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 019, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FR.JOSEPH KOLUTHUVELIL.

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

3 KERALA RURUAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION AGENCY (KRWSA) REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PTC TOWERS, SS KOVIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

4 THE REGIONAL PROJECT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, KERALA RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION AGENCY,MMC.X/106-112,2ND FLOOR, UMK TOWER, MALAPPURAM-676 506.

¶17

R4 BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE

¶18

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RASHMI K.M.

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

RP No.126/2021 IN WP(C)No.12801/2020

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Dated this the 8^th day of March, 2021

¶24

The Kuttippuram Grama Panchayath, who is the 4^th respondent in the writ petition has preferred this Review Petition.

¶25

By judgment dated 06.10.2020 in WP(C) No. 12801/2020, this Court directed the 3^rd respondent-Regional Project Director to convene a meeting inviting the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent Grama Panchayath, find out the extent of completion of work by the petitioner as per the agreement and recommend settlement of bills in respect of the work already completed by the petitioner, within a period of two months. It is submitted by the review petitioner that such a meeting was convened in which the Secretary of Grama Panchayat participated and the recommendation was to disburse the amount due to the writ petitioner.

¶26

RP No.126/2021 IN WP(C)No.12801/2020 3

¶27

The learned Standing Counsel for the review petitioner contended that though the meeting conducted pursuant to the directions of this Court made such a recommendation, a large number of citizens are not getting drinking water. According to the review petitioner, the writ petitioner has not given water supply to the agreed number of applicants. In the circumstances, if the amount is disbursed, the review petitioner as well as a large number of applicants for drinking water supply would put to untold hardship and loss.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

From the pleadings in the writ petition, especially

¶30

from Ext.P4, this Court came to the conclusion that the work

¶31

in respect of construction of Jalanidhi II – Kuttippuram Jalanidhi Jalavitharana Padhathi at Kuttipuram Gramapanchayath have been completed successfully on 30.11.2017. The Project Commissioner has certified that

¶32

the entire works is executed in accordance with the

¶33

¶34

¶35

approved drawings and specification. The Project Commissioner has further submitted that there are no liabilities pending against this work. When the Project Commissioner, who is responsible for the execution of the work has certified so and when the meeting convened pursuant to the directions of this Court in the judgment dated 06.10.2020 also endorsed the decision, the 4^th respondent cannot now come up before this Court and seek to review the writ petition.

¶36

The review petitioner has not made a case for review of the judgment. There is no error apparent on the face of the records. Therefore the Review Petition is dismissed.

¶37

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

ncd/08.03.2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶43

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD AT THE OFFICE OF REGIONAL PROJECT DIRECTOR DATED 05.11.2020. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT REGIONAL PROJECT DIRECTOR, MALAPPURAM BEARING NO.KRWSA-MLPM/3286/2017-MCD DATED 04.12.2020. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE URGENT MEETING OF THE PETITIONER PANCHAYATH HELD ON 07.01.2021. ANNEXURE A3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA OF THE URGENT MEETING OF THE PETITIONER PANCHAYATH DATED 06.01.2021. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.01.2021 RECEIVED FROM SRI ANVAR A. ANNEXURE A4 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.01.2021 RECEIVED FROM SMT. SULIKHA MUTIYATHIL. ANNEXURE A4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL RECEIVED FROM SRI MAHMOOD.

The Kuttippuram Grama Panchayath v. Welfare Services Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Kuttippuram Grama Panchayath v. Welfare Services Ernakulam

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

Philip John Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Johnson, Vs the Kerala State Nirmithi Kendra

Kinallur Rock Sand Vs State of Kerala

Francis Vadakkel Vs the Government of Kerala

Aruvipuram Sree Narayana Dharma Paripanala Yogam Vs Prof. M.K.Sanoo

Vaikundan Achary Vs State of Kerala