Dismissed

Pindimana Grama Panchayat v. Tomy George

Kerala HC16 Nov 2022WA/2637/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal by Pindimana Grama Panchayat challenging the quashing of revenue recovery proceedings against a beneficiary committee member was dismissed. The High Court held that appellants failed to prove the respondent’s liability and found no illegality in the lower court's decision regarding lack of specific reasons and delay.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; relief sought by the Panchayat to initiate recovery was not granted.

Pindimana Grama Panchayat Vs Tomy George — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶7

WA NO. 2637 OF 2015

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WPC 28495/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 25.6.2015

¶9

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5:

¶10

1 PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PINDIMANA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM - 686 692.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PINDIMANA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM - 686 692.

¶12

BY ADVS.BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN GEORGIE SIMON(K/001374/2001) CHARUTHA BHAIJU(K/000413/2018) BASIL SCARIA(D/8405/2018) FATHIMA SHALU S.(K/2636/2021) CHANDHANA BHAIJU(K/001122/2022)

¶13

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶14

1 TOMY GEORGE S/O.LATE GEORGE THOMAS, KAITHACKAL HOUSE, PINDIMANA, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 692.

¶15

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶16

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

¶17

4 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM - 686 666.

¶18

BY ADV SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW ADV.TEK CHAND, SR.G.P.

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA NO. 2637 OF 2015

:: 2 ::

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16^th day of November 2022

¶24

S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

¶25

This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 25.6.2015 in W.P.(C)No.28495 of 2014. Appellants herein are the respondents 4 and 5 - Pindimana Grama Panchayat and its Secretary respectively.

¶26

Brief facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as follows:

¶27

The writ petitioner/respondent No.1 in this appeal was the Convener of the Beneficiary Committee for execution of ‘Pichapra Drinking Water Scheme’. He took an advance of Rs.1,40,000/- from the 4^th respondent - Pindimana Grama Panchayat. He submitted part bill for Rs.93,660/-. Thereafter, he did not complete the balance work and submit final bill. In the year 2005, Exhibit P5 audit report was submitted alleging that the beneficiary committee has not executed the work completely. There is also a finding in

¶28

WA NO. 2637 OF 2015

¶29

:: 3 ::

¶30

Exhibit P5 audit report that excess amounts were paid by the Panchayat to the beneficiary committee. Later, in the Local Fund Audit, that was noticed and direction was given to realize Rs.46,340/- with interest from him. The Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated against him was quashed by this Hon’ble Court as per Ext.P9 judgment dated 5.11.2013 in W.P.(C)No.9509 with direction to give copy of the audit report and pass orders. Pursuant to the said direction, copy of the audit report was given to the petitioner and his objections were also considered. Later, Pindimana Grama Panchayat passed Ext.P10 directing to remit Rs.46,340/- with 12% interest, totaling to Rs.1,29,780/-. Challenging Ext.P10 Revenue Recovery Proceedings, writ petitioner filed writ petition.

¶31

Writ court, after considering the contentions raised by both sides, disposed of the writ petition vide the impugned judgment 25.6.2015 in W.P.(C)No.28495 of 2014, relevant portion of which reads thus:

¶32

WA NO. 2637 OF 2015

¶33

:: 4 ::

¶34

“2. The earlier demand was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. (C).No.9509/2011. Therein, this Court directed the Panchayat to give an opportunity to the petitioner to raise an objection based on the audit objection. Thereafter, the Panchayat passed Ext.P10 order. Ext.P10 order states that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount based on the audit. It is not discernible from the impugned order, how the petitioner is liable for the excess amount spent. The Panchayat has only calculated the amount and directed the petitioner to remit the balance. The liability under law would arise only when there is a cause against the person to whom liability is attached. In this case, even the Panchayat has not cared to defend their action. If at all any loss is caused to the Panchayat, the Panchayat can initiate action against the petitioner pointing out laches on the part of the petitioner or reasons for which the action is initiated. In this case, an action has been initiated after lapse of many years to recover the amount. If the petitioner has violated any terms of the agreement, necessarily, that must reflect in Ext.P10 order. Nothing is seen from Ext.P10 order as to how this amount has been arrived at. The reliance placed on the audit objection cannot be a reason to fasten a liability on the petitioner unless he is found to be responsible for any excess amount expended. In such circumstances, Ext.P10 is quashed. Consequently, all recovery proceedings are also quashed.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.”

¶36

WA NO. 2637 OF 2015

¶37

:: 5 ::

¶38

Being aggrieved by the above judgment, appellants - Pindimana Grama Panchayat and its Secretary have preferred this writ appeal contending, inter alia, that the ground raised by the Panchayat that the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 is not applicable is not correct. It is submitted by the appellants that the finding of the learned Single Judge in the review petition that the petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs.10,000/- is illegal. According to the appellants, the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that after receiving Rs.1,40,000/- the writ petitioner submitted part bill for Rs.93,660/- and he misappropriated the balance amount of Rs.46,340/- without doing any work. Moreover, the period of limitation will start from the date of submission of final bill that the petitioner has not done so far. It is also submitted that Ext.P5 audit report would disclose that the petitioner neither did work nor submitted final bill. Various grounds are raised in the appeal.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶40

WA NO. 2637 OF 2015

¶41

:: 6 ::

¶42

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the appellants have failed to produce any substantial evidence to prove the fact that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner is responsible for any excess amount expended. No specific reasons are assigned by the Panchayat to initiate revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner for the loss caused to the Panchayat. Moreover, the recovery proceedings have been initiated after lapse of a long period.

¶43

In the above facts and circumstances of the case and also in the absence of any illegality or irregularity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.

¶44

Appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶45

SD/-

¶46

S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶47

SD/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶48

jes

Pindimana Grama Panchayat v. Tomy George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pindimana Grama Panchayat v. Tomy George

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

Union of India Vs K.Gomathy

State of Kerala Vs Dr. E.C. Raveendran

Union of India Vs P.v.Thankappan

The Director of Local Fund Audit, Thiruvananthapuram Vs P. Johns

The Tahsildar Vs Shyja

The Tahsildar Vs R.Savithammal