IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 33036 of 2006(G)
1. T.A.CHACKO, THADATHIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT (SPECIAL GRADE),
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,
3. SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM,
4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.ANILKUMAR
For Respondent :SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, SC, MUNNAR G.PANCHAY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :27/06/2007
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No.33036 OF 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2007
JUDGMENT
Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:
Petitioner executed a contract with the first respondent on
06/09/2003. As per the terms of the contract petitioner agreed
to install a plant for conversion of Panchayat waste into Organic
manure through Vermi composting process. Petitioner has done
his part. But the first respondent has not furnished any
electricity, water and grinding machine and hence contract could
not be performed. Petitioner purchased about Rs. 12 lakhs seed
worms for the functioning of plant and it was damaged.
Petitioner made representation. By Ext.P5 first respondent has
forwarded a letter to the petitioner. It was informed that
contract period will be further extended as they could not
perform their part of agreement. It is stated that the vermi
composing unit could not start due to the total negligence of the
first respondent.
2. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the
WPC No.33036/06 2
first respondent not to terminate the contract holding that the
petitioner is entitled to commence the contract for two years and
the alleged delay was due to the non-performance of the terms of
contract on the part of the first respondent and not to issue
contract to third person without complying tender formalities
provided under the Kerala Panchayat Raj ( contract ) Rules. A
direction is also sought to ensure that first respondent will not
issue new contract to third party. Further claim is for Rs. 13
lakhs to the petitioner as compensation in case award is issued to
third person without terminating the contract of the petitioner.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. In the
counter affidavit it is interalia stated as follows:
The work was awarded to the petitioner for an amount of
Rs. 1.85,000/-. As per Ext.P1 agreement petitioner has to remit
Rs. 24,524 on 31-03-2003 to 31-07-2003, 31-11-2003, 31-3-04
and 31-07-2004 and he has also to deposit earnest money of
Rs.15,000/-. But the petitioner did not remit the above
instalments. He has only remitted a total sum of Rs. 40,875/-
and an earnest money of Rs. 15,000/-. In order to get over the
consequence of the non-remittance of the remaining dues and
violation of the terms in Ext.P1 agreement he has come up with
WPC No.33036/06 3
the story of non- performance of the terms and conditions of
tender norms by the Panchayat. The Panchayat has provided all
facilities for the vermi composing unit except the chopping
machines and grinder I, the absence of which the work can be
done manually. As the above facility was not extended by the
Panchayat, the 10% additional amount as specified in clause 9 of
Ext.P1 was not demanded from him.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Panchayat that the work is already awarded to somebody else.
Reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioner.
The contract was executed on 16/12/2002 according to the
Panchayat. According to the petitioner, it was executed on
06/09/2003. In the nature of the contentions raised and the
disputes arising, I find that this is a matter in which the petitioner
has to approach the appropriate forum for seeking such reliefs as
he is entitled. Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to approach
the appropriate forum, writ petition is disposed of.
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
sv.
WPC No.33036/06 4