High Court Kerala High Court

Sri.Pappachan @ Chacko vs The Paingottoor Grama Panchayath on 18 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sri.Pappachan @ Chacko vs The Paingottoor Grama Panchayath on 18 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5160 of 2005(L)


1. SRI.PAPPACHAN @ CHACKO,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE PAINGOTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASST. ENGINEER,

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,

4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

 Dated :18/07/2008

 O R D E R
                          KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
               ----------------------------------------------
                    W.P.(C) No.5160 of 2005
               ----------------------------------------------
                      Dated 18th July, 2008.
                           J U D G M E N T

The writ petition is filed mainly with the following

prayer :-

“To issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing 1st and 2nd
respondents to revise the estimate of the work as per Rule 14(5)
of the K.P.R.(Execution of Public Works) Rules, providing the
expenses of blasting hard rock and the additional expenses
incurred for the completion of the work, as per the PWD rate and
to issue the final bill as expeditiously as possible.”

Petitioner has filed I.A.9332/2008 with the following prayer :-

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit,
it is most humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Lok Adalat may be
pleased to issue directions directing the 1st respondent
Panchayat to pay forthwith to the petitioner an amount of
Rs.30,714/- along with interest thereon @ 10% p.a. from
1.4.2004 upto date of actual payment and to further direct the
respondent Panchayat to revise Ext.P2 in accordance with Rules
14(5) and 18 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Execution of Public
Works) Rules, in respect of the amounts claimed over and
above Rs.65,000/- and to sanction and finalise the final bill in
that regard and pay the difference amount to the petitioner at
the earliest, along with interest thereon @ 10% p.a. from
1.4.2004 upto date of actual payment.”

It appears the matter requires fresh consideration by the third

respondent. The parties agree that the matter can be referred to

the third respondent for a fresh decision. Hence the writ petition

is disposed of as follows:-

In the event of the petitioner approaching the third

respondent by way of a detailed representation producing all the

documents, the said authority shall consider the matter with

WP(C) NO.5160/2005 2

notice to the petitioner and take a fresh decision in accordance

with law, within another three months. It is made clear that since

the authority is taking a fresh decision, the same shall be

rendered untrammelled by any of the observations contained in

Ext.P11.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

tgs

KURIAN JOSEPH, J

———————————————-

W.P.(C) No.5160 of 2005

———————————————-

J U D G M E N T

Dated 18th July, 2008.