IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 2757 of 2002(C)
1. SAINABA KUNJU, PUTHEN PURACKAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINER, PUBLIC HEALTH
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH
4. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR,REVENUE RECOVERY,
5. VILLAGE OFFICER, CHINGOLI,KARTHIKAPALLY
For Petitioner :SRI.L.MOHANAN
For Respondent :SRI.BABU VARGHESE, SC, KWA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :13/12/2007
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
-------------------------
O.P. No. 2757 of 2002
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 13th day of December, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner in the original petition is the widow of a contractor,
who was awarded a contract by the Water Authority. Even though
the contract was cancelled, the materials like PVC pipes, AC pipes,
valves, couplings etc., valued above Rs.18 lakhs, supplied to the
contractor was not recovered by the Water Authority in time.
However, years after the Water Authority proceeded for recovery
against the contractor, who by then had died. When the matter
came up before this Court on 13/09/2006, this Court felt that it is
only on account of lapses on the part of the Water Authority
officials, this loss has happened. Therefore, a vigilance enquiry was
ordered and the vigilance had, based on the said interim order,
conducted enquiry and filed report to the Water Authority. It is
stated in the interim order that the Managing Director of the Water
Authority will, on the basis of the vigilance report and after
conducting enquiry, identify the officials who were in-charge of the
said contract and supply of materials and fix liability on them.
Since vigilance has submitted their report, it is for the Managing
Director to act upon the same. However, I make it clear that
O.P.NO. 2757/2002
-2-
individual responsibility, if any, should be cast on the employees of
the Water Authority only after identifying the role of such persons
and after issuing show cause notice to them and after hearing
objections. If any asset of the contractor is proceeded against, his
legal heir, namely, the widow who filed this original petition, also
should be heard before the recovery proceedings are ordered.
Accordingly, this original petition is disposed of directing
respondents to withdraw recovery proceedings for four months from
now, within which time, the Managing Director should adjudicate
the matter and fix liability based on vigilance report and materials
gathered on his enquiry. Recovery proceedings after four months
will be made in accordance with the order passed by the Managing
Director, after hearing the parties.
2. Since the original petition is disposed of with the above
directions, there is no need for this Court to decide the contentions
raised by 7th respondent, who is free to raise his objections before
the Managing Director, if there is any specific proposal holding him
liable.
This original petition is disposed of as above.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
jg