Disposed

Eldhose v. the Elappara Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC3 Jan 2024WP(C)/1968/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contractor challenged Panchayat demand notices seeking alleged excess payments received for renovation work, along with Revenue Recovery notices. As the notices were issued without hearing him, the court set them aside, directed the Director of Panchayat to reconsider after a hearing within four months, and left the limitation question open.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P1, P2, P5 and P6 set aside; fresh reconsideration with opportunity of hearing ordered within four months.

Eldhose Vs the Elappara Grama Panchayath — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 13TH POUSHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1968 OF 2013

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ELDHOSE

¶8

AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.YOHANNAN, INIVEETTIL HOUSE, VALARA,
VALARA.P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT – 685 501

¶9

BY ADV SRI.JOICE GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ELAPPARA.P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685501.

¶13

2 THE SECRETARY

¶14

ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ELAPPARA.P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685501.

¶15

3 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT

¶16

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695001.

¶17

4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

¶18

DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, STATE OF KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶19

5 THE DIRECTOR

¶20

VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTIONS BUREAU,

¶21

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶22

6 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR)

¶23

TALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM, DEVIKULAM.P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685613.

¶24

7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER

¶25

MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, ADIMALI.P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685561.

¶26

BY ADVS.

¶27

SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER

¶28

SRI. B.S. SYAMANTHAK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

¶31

WP(C) NO.1968 OF 2013

¶32

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶33

-----------------------------------W.P.(C)No.1968 of 2013

¶34

------------------------------------Dated this the 03^rd day of January, 2024

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The above writ petition is filed with the following

¶37

prayers:

¶38

“(i) to call for the records leading to Ext.P1, P2, P5 and P6 and quash the same by issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶39

(ii) to declare that the petitioners are not liable to pay any amount as demanded in Ext.P2 notice issued on the basis of Ext.P1.

¶40

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents not to take any steps to recover the amount demanded in Ext.P2 notice.”

¶41

(iv) to grant such other relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”[SIC]

¶42

WP(C) NO.1968 OF 2013

¶43

¶44

The petitioner is a contractor who executed

¶45

the work of the renovation of the public market owned by the 1^st respondent Grama Panchayat at Elappara during the year 2002-2003 under DRDA Scheme. According to the petitioner, he executed the work as per the terms and conditions of the tender and the amounts were received only on the basis of the bills duly prepared and sanctioned by the authorities concerned in the year 2003 itself.

¶46

It is submitted that the 3^rd respondent, by Ext.P1 letter dated 18.11.2011 intimated the Panchayat to take steps to recover an amount of Rs.2,51,357/-, which according to them is the excess amount received by the petitioner for the actual work done. On the basis of Ext.P1, the 2^nd respondent Secretary of the Panchayat issued Ext.P2 demand notice requiring the petitioner to pay the said amount.

¶47

¶48

WP(C) NO.1968 OF 2013

¶49

On receiving Ext.P2, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 requesting the 2^nd respondent to furnish the details referred in Ext.P1 and P2 for the purpose of giving a detailed reply, but there was no response. Meanwhile, the 2^nd respondent approached the 6^th respondent, the authorized officer under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovering the amount demanded in Ext.P2 and consequently Ext.P5 and P6 Revenue Recovery notices were issued. At that stage, this writ petition is filed. This Court admitted the writ petition and stayed the recovery proceedings and the interim order is in force evennow.

¶50

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat.

¶51

Admittedly, Ext.P1 letter and P2 notice were issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. I do not want to make any observation

¶52

¶53

WP(C) NO.1968 OF 2013

¶54

about the allegation that the petitioner received the excess amount. The petitioner has got a definite case that, evenif there is any excess amount received by the petitioner, the same is barred under Section 243 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Since, Ext.P1 and P2 are issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, I think, that can be set aside and there can be a direction to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The question of limitation raised by the petitioner in this writ petition under Section 243 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act is also left open.

¶55

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶56

i. Ext.P1, P2, P5 and P6 are set aside.

¶57

ii. The 3^rd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected

¶58

WP(C) NO.1968 OF 2013

¶59

¶60

parties, if any, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶61

iii. All legal questions raised by the petitioner in

¶62

this writ petition are left open and the petitioner is free to agitate the same before the 3^rd respondent at the time of hearing.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶65

nvj

¶66

WP(C) NO.1968 OF 2013

¶67

¶68

¶69

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D8-
42172/2010 DATED 08.11.2010 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DIRECTOR OF
PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE D1-5845/2010
DATED 01.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 08.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4TRUECOPYOFTHEPOSTAL
ACKNOWLEDGMENTCARDEVIDENCING
RECEIPT OF EXT.P3
EXHIBIT P5TRUECOPYOFTHENOTICE
NO.2012/15138/6/100 DATED 12.12.2012
UNDER SEC.7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY
ACT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P6TRUECOPYOFTHENOTICE
NO.2012/15138/6/100 DATED 12.12.2012
UNDER SEC.34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY
ACT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER.

¶70

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶71

// TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Eldhose v. the Elappara Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eldhose v. the Elappara Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaisy Jose, Vs State of Kerala

Bella Elsa Jose Vs State of Kerala

O.P.Srivasthava Vs State of Kerala

Dr.K.Suchithra Vs State of Kerala

Manjusha T Vs Secretary to Government, General Education Department

Aboobacker Vs the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Chalissery Police Station