IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 36426 of 2003(J)
1. V.J.MATHEW, SON OF JOSEPHJ,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICER,
3. THE SECRETARY, VAZHOOR GRAMA
For Petitioner :SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :16/03/2007
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
----------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 36426 of 2003 J
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 16th day of March, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, the learned
Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the
additional 4th respondent impleaded.
2. The petitioner as Convener of beneficiary committee was
awarded contract for construction of protection wall for a canal in
the 3rd respondent panchayat. The petitioner is advanced an
amount of Rs. 1 lakh and according to the petitioner, granite
rubble for more than the value of Rs. 1 lakh is procured and
stored in the work site. Petitioner has produced some
photographs, which shows that same quantity of granite rubble is
stored in the area. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent submitted that on account of delay, work had to be
cancelled. The dispute raised by the additional 4th respondent is
that petitioner has not allowed committee members to co-
operate in the work. It is seen that besides this case, there were
W.P.(C)No. 36426/2003
-Page numbers-
two other writ petitions in this Court, which were all disposed of
as of now. In WP(C) No. 2403/2005, there was a direction to the
Taluk Surveyor to survey the property and earmark the course of
the canal and the course for protection wall to be constructed by
the petitioner. If this is not done so far, the Taluk Surveyor has
to do it without any delay. I do not think delay in execution of
work is attributable to the petitioner because obviously the
matter was in litigation in this Court and also in Civil Court. More
over, if the work is cancelled and rearranged, the same will lead
to higher cost to the beneficiaries and ultimately loss to the
public at large. In the circumstance and since the petitioner has
procured substantial quantity of material, this writ petition is
disposed of with the following directions. The 2nd respondent and
the engineer allotted by the 1st respondent will evaluate and
oversee the execution of the contract. The material procured
should be valued first and if there is provision in the contract to
advance funds to the petitioner to procure material for the
execution of the work, they will go by the contract and make
advances to the petitioner, if permissible, as per the terms under
W.P.(C)No. 36426/2003
-Page numbers-
the contract after collecting security. Petitioner will carry out the
work and complete it within a period of three months from today.
The 1st and 2nd respondents are directed to take immediate steps
to get the survey done by Taluk Surveyor and oversee the
completion of work by the petitioner and eligible amount also
should be made to the petitioner without any delay, so that the
work is not delayed beyond further three months.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)
jg