Petitioner alleged corruption and irregularities in the construction of an MP-funded road using SC funds, seeking quashing of the final bill approval. The Court found the allegations baseless upon review of a competent technical report and dismissed the writ petition.
No relief granted; Writ Petition dismissed with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2024 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 1844 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
M.P.JAYAPRAKASH
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. PAPPEN,
KANIYANTHARA
LAKSHAM VEEDU PAYATTUPAKKA,
KAINADY POST,
KAVALAM VILLAGE,
KUTTANADU TALUK.
BY ADV SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA COLLECTORATE BUILDING, ALAPPUZHA POST, PIN-688001.2 THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, VELIYANADU BLOCK PANCHAYATH, RAMANKARY POST, VELIYANADU VILLAGE, KUTTANADU TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689595.3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, VELIYANADU BLOCK PANCHAYATH, RAMANKARY POST, VELIYANDU VILLAGE, KUTTANADU TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-6895954 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, VELIYANADU BLOCK PANCHAYATH, RAMANKARY POST, VELIYANADU VILLAGE, KUTTANADU TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689595.5 K.GOPAKUMAR, MEMBER, VELIYANADU BLOCK PANCHAYATH, RAMANKARY POST, VELIYANADU VILLAGE, KUTTANADU TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689595.WP(C) NO.1844 OF 2015
2
6 JAYAN KAVALAKUDY, S/O. MADHAVAN, KAVALAKUDY CHIRA, NARAKATHARA POST, KAVALAM VILLAGE, KUTTANADU TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-68850017 THE DISTRICT OFFICER FOR SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA P.O., PIN-688001.8 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA P.O., PIN-688001.BY ADVS.
K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN FOR R6
M.D.GANGADHARAN
SUNIL KUMAR A.G
GEORGE MATHEW
M.D.SASIKUMARAN
DIPU JAMES
SRI.V.VENUGOPAL,GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R4,
R7 AND R8
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 23.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.1844 OF 2015
P.M. MANOJ, J
W.P.(C) No.1844 of 2015
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2024
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is preferred being aggrieved by issuance of Ext.P11. It is stated that the petitioner
belongs to Scheduled Caste community and he is a beneficiary of the road between ArakkatharaVelathikara-Nalupara road in ward No.7 of
Neelamperoor Grama Panchayat. It is alleged that irregularities and corruptions are involved in the construction of the said road. It is stated that the bill amount for the construction of the aforesaid road is
₹13,00,000/and it was illegally approved by respondents 2 and 3 and submitted to the
WP(C) NO.1844 OF 2015
4
1st respondent during May 2014 to effect payment. In order to challenge that, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition.
WP(C) NO.1844 OF 2015
5
colluding with respondents 2 and 3 for their personal achievements. In that respect, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing Ext.P11 and further direction to the 1st respondent to re-investigate Ext.P9 complaint in the presence of 7th respondent and also considering Ext.P7 report already submitted by him.
WP(C) NO.1844 OF 2015
500 metres, the entire length could not be taken up for construction under MPLADS due to lack of funds. In the estimate, it was proposed to construct 173 metres of road with 1.70 centimetres thickness. For this pupose, initial levels were taken for 200 metres, which was misunderstood by the people as the length of the road to be constructed under the scheme. The said
work was entrusted to a committee of the beneficiaries. They executed the work up to 180 metres with 1.06 centimetres thickness, 64 centimetres less that of the proposed level. This had brought to the notice of the beneficiary committee and they were asked to correct the deduction in thickness. It is also submitted that no personal interest or corruption was involved in the work and no effort had been made to prepare the work bill and effect the payment.
WP(C) NO.1844 OF 2015
7
respondents 2 and 3 are colluding with respondents 5 and 6. The counter affidavit further stated that the said contention has no merits. Ext.P11 order was passed after hearing the 7th respondent in detail and in the light of the report of the Executive Engineer, PWD, AB-4-General/2014 dated 20.12.2014. The said report is contrary to the contentions taken in Exts.P6 and P7. Since the Executive Engineer is the competent authority to enquire and report the technical aspects regarding the construction of the said road and if no malpractices or deficiency in the execution of the work is not brought out, then there is no point in attacking Ext.P11 order.
WP(C) NO.1844 OF 2015
passed by this Court dated 24.11.2015. Though the
execution work was completed on 31.03.2014, the final bill was prepared on the basis of recording of final level after one year and eight months from the date of execution of the work. The work was executed in Kuttanadu in a marshy place and after 31.03.2013, there were four major floods and the said road was sunk on account of the floods. Therefore, there was level difference and the level of road has come down than the levels stipulated in the agreement and which were there at the time of completion of road on 31.03.2014. In fact, the bills were prepared on the basis of the level taken after one year and eight months of the completion of the road. That results in vast difference in amount shown in the bill than the amount actually expended for execution of the work.
WP(C) NO.1844 OF 2015
9
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.V.Venugopal, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4, 7 and 8 and Sri.K.S. Hariharaputhran, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent.
WP(C) NO.1844 OF 2015
10
is able to find any malpractices or deficiency in the execution of work. Ext.P11 order was passed on considering such report after hearing the petitioner, 2nd respondent, 7th respondent as well as respondents 5 and 6. On the basis of such hearing, it was found by the 4th respondent that the allegation raised has no basis.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. I do not find any reason to interfere with the reasons assigned by the 1st respondent while disposing Ext.P9 complaint.
Sd/P.M. MANOJ JUDGE
SSS
WP(C) NO.1844 OF 2015
11
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1844/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED ESTIMATE WITH
ABSTRACT AND THE SITE PLAN OF
ARAKKATHARA-VELATHIKARA-NALUPARA ROAD IN
WARD NO.7 OF NEELAMPEROOR GRAMA
PANCHAYATH PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY
THE M.P.SRI. KODIKUNNEL SURESH.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF FEASIBILITY CERTIFICATE
DATED NIL ISSUED BY RESPONENT 3 AND 4 TO
1ST RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD MENTIONED EXT.
P1.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION
ORDER DATED 19-1-13 ISSUED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE ROAD MENTIONED IN EXT. P1.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNICAL SANCTION
ORDER NO. D2-12/12-13 DATED NIL ISSUED
BY RESPONDENT 2 AND 3 RELATING TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD MENTIONED IN
EXT. P1.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY 0F THE AGREEMENT NO.
E.13/2012-13 DATED 27-2-13 EXECUTED BY
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 6 IN CONNECTION WITH
THE EXECUTION OF THE ROAD MENTIONED IN
EXT. P1.
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SCHEDULED
CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AT VELIYANADU
BLOCK PANCHAYATH SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENT
NO. 7 AFTER INSPECTION THE SITE ON 21-5-
14.
EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 5-6-14 OF
7TH RESPONDENT FORWARDED TO 1ST
RESPONDENT.
WP(C) NO.1844 OF 2015
12
EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE MASS STRIKE NOTICE
DATED 22-5-14 PRINTED AND CIRCULATED BY
1ST PETITIONER AND HIS COLLEAGUES TO
DEMONSTRATE STRIKE ACTIVITIES IN FRONT
OF VELIYANADU BLOCK OFFICE ON 30-5-14.
EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT DATED
12-6-14 SENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT ON 16-6-
14 BY FAX.
EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 9-10-14 IN
WPC 17368/2014 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT.
EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 7-1-15 OF 1ST
RESPONDENTCOMMUNICATEDTOTHE
PETITIONER ON 15-1-15.
EXHIBIT P12TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER AND
REPORT DATED 13.10.15 OF 7TH RESPONDENT
COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER’S COUNSEL BY
POST.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT R1(a)TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
NO.1019/2012/DPO/ALP/MPLADS/KSDATED
07.01.2015.
EXHIBIT R6(a)TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
29.04.2016.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition alleging corruption regarding SC fund road construction should be quashed.
Whether the 1st respondent's inquiry and findings regarding the defect in road construction were correct.
M.P. JAYAPRAKASH
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA
THE DISTRICT OFFICER FOR SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT, ALAPPUZHA
P.M. MANOJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court