Jayachandran vs Secretary, Irikkur Block Panchayath
2024 Latest Caselaw 8901 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 8901 Ker
Judgement Date : 27 March, 2024

Kerala High Court

Jayachandran vs Secretary, Irikkur Block Panchayath on 27 March, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
    WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                         WP(C) NO. 2318 OF 2014
PETITIONER/S:

          JAYACHANDRAN
          AGED 52 YEARS
          S/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, LAKSHMIGOVIND, MAYYIL P.O.,
          KANNUR-670602.
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN
          SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL
          SRI.P.SAJU
          SRI.E.M.UNNIKRISHNAN MANJERI


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     SECRETARY, IRIKKUR BLOCK PANCHAYATH
          IRIKKUR BLOCK PANCHAYATH, IRRIKKU,
          KANNUR DISTRICT, 670593.
    2     PROJECT DIRECTOR, POVERTY ALLOCATION UNIT,
           (DISTRICT PANCHAYATH), KANNUR, 670001.
    3     SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
          REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE,
           TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670143.



          SRI.BINOY DAVIS (GP)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 2318 OF 2014               2



                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the

revenue recovery proceedings initiated to recover the amounts

mentioned in Ext.P7.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner is a contractor, who was awarded with

certain works by the Irikkur Block Panchayath for which,

agreement No.8/2006-07 dated 19.06.2000 was executed by

the petitioner. It appears from a reading of Ext.P7 that though

the petitioner had completed the work, the same was not

completed within time and therefore, a sum of Rs.4,04,547/-

(Rupees Four lakhs four thousand five hundred and forty seven

only) had to be recovered from the petitioner as penalty for

the delay in completing the work. It is also seen from Ext.P4

that the said demands had been based on certain observations

of the audit wing, which opined that penalty was to be levied

on the petitioner. The petitioner has a case that the

determination that the petitioner was liable to penalty on the

basis of the observations of the audit wing, cannot be

sustained in law. It is his case that the audit wing has not

considered the entire facts and circumstances and the reasons

for the delay in completing the work (if any) and the 1 st

respondent could not have unilaterally proceeded to hold that

the amount mentioned in Ext.P7 is to be recovered from the

petitioner.

3. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for

the 1st respondent.

4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for

respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that the proceedings for

imposition of penalty appears to have been taken on the basis

of the fact that the petitioner had not completed the work

awarded to him within the time specified.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the

view that since Ext.P7 is a unilateral determination by the 1 st

respondent that the petitioner is liable to penalty for a sum of

Rs.4,04,547/-, the revenue recovery proceedings against the

petitioner initiated on the basis of Ext.P7 must be quashed.

The requirements of natural justice indicate that the petitioner

must be afforded an opportunity of being heard and there must

be a determination before any penalty in the nature of Ext.P7

is imposed on him. Ext.P7 can therefore be treated as a show

cause notice and the petitioner shall be permitted to file his

objections to Ext.P7 and thereafter, the 1 st respondent shall

take a decision in the matter affording an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner.

In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand

disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) Ext.P7 shall be treated as a show cause notice, calling

upon the petitioner to show cause why the penalty imposed on

the petitioner should not be recovered from the petitioner.

The petitioner shall file a reply to Ext.P7, within a period of

two weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this judgment.

The petitioner shall, thereafter, appear before the 1 st

respondent at 11.00 AM on 19.04.2024 along with a copy of

the writ petition and certified copy of this judgment and

thereafter, the matter shall be adjudicated by the 1 st

respondent, as directed above, after hearing the petitioner.

(ii) The revenue recovery proceedings initiated against

the petitioner to recover the amounts found due under Ext.P7

stand quashed, making it clear that further revenue recovery

proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner, if at all the

petitioner is found liable to pay any amount on the basis of the

fresh orders to be issued by the 1 st respondent, as directed

above.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE ajt

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2318/2014

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.8/2006-07 DATED 19.6.2006.

EXHIBIT-P1(a): TRUE COPY OF SITE HANDLING OVER REPORT DATED 19.6.2006.

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PAGES 1 TO 45 OF THE MEASUREMENT BOOK NO.10/06-07.

EXHIBIT-P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.5.09.RECEIVED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER FROM THE PRINCIPAL OF THE INSTITUTE.

EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL PLAN PROPOSAL MOOTED BY R1.

EXHIBIT-P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.4.2010. EXHIBIT-P6(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL BILL. EXHIBIT-P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.9.2012. EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE.