Pannery Dineshan vs The Secretary
2025 Latest Caselaw 10141 Ker

Kerala High Court

Pannery Dineshan vs The Secretary on 27 October, 2025

                                                     2025:KER:80586

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

     MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1947

                        WP(C) NO. 9644 OF 2022

PETITIONER:

          PANNERY DINESHAN,
          AGED 42 YEARS
          RESIDING AT SURYA APARTMENT,FLAT NO. 241, NEAR KSRTC,
          KANNUR, PIN - 670001

          BY ADV SRI.C.K.SREEJITH


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE SECRETARY,
          DISTRICT PANCHAYAT,16/XVI, VIVEKANANDANAGAR, MUTTIL,
          KALPETTA NORTH PO. ,DIST- WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 673122

    2     EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
          L.I.D & E.W. DIVISION, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT,WAYANAD CIVIL
          STATION, KALPETTA NORTH, PIN - 673122

    3     ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
          AMBALAVAYAL PANCHAYAT OFFICE,L.I.D & E.W. SUB DIVISION,
          SULTHANBATHERY,WAYANAD DIST., PIN - 673592

    4     ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
          AMBALAVAYAL PANCHAYAT OFFICE,L.I.D & E.W. SUB DIVISION,
          SULTHANBATHERY,WAYANAD DIST., PIN - 673592

    5     PARENT & TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
          REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN,VADUVANCHAL GOVERNMENT HIGHER
          SECONDARY SCHOOL, WAYANAD DIST., PIN - 673581

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
          SHRI.RENOY VINCENT
          SRI.SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI
 WP(C) No.9644 of 2022          -2-




                                              2025:KER:80586


            SHRI.ARUN ROY

            NANDA SURENDREN

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 27.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.9644 of 2022                   -3-




                                                             2025:KER:80586


                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th day of October, 2025

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to

respondents 1 to 4 to take steps to revise the estimate cost and pay

the amount due with interest pursuant to the work done in

connection with Ext.P1.

2. When the matter came up for consideration on

13.03.2025 this Court passed the following order:-

"The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to take steps to revise the estimate cost and pay the amount due with interest pursuant to the work done in connection with Ext.P1.

2. The specific case of the petitioner is that as per an agreement, the petitioner has undertaken the work of laying roofing sheet in a school building, in the place of asbestos sheets. The work has been completed in terms of Ext.P1, except for the fact that 25% of the sheets used were of 0.35 mm thickness, whereas going by Ext.P1, the petitioner was obliged to lay sheets having thickness of 0.5 mm. The petitioner would submit that the laying of sheets having 0.5 mm thickness could not be done due to the shortage of material during the Covid pandemic lockdown and only sheets having0.35 mm thickness were available in the market.

3. The case of the 1st respondent is that the work was entrusted with the Beneficiary Committee and agreement was also executed with them as evident from Ext.R1(a) and a perusal of Ext.R1(b) communication issued by the Convener of the Beneficiary Committee addressed to the 1st respondent

2025:KER:80586

would reveal that the laying of sheets having 0.35 mm has happened due to lockdown in Covid pandemic and further the non-availability of necessary sheets having 0.5 mm. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that agreement was with the Beneficiary Committee and not between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent relying on the Kerala Panchayath Raj(Execution of Public Works)Rules, 1997, especially Rule 15, which deals with 'check measurement' submits that the Contractor or Executive Committee Convener of the beneficiary committee, as the case may be shall inform in writing the Panchayat Secretary and the Panchayat Engineer the fact of completion of the work and the measurement of work and check measurement shall be completed within one week of receipt of such information and after that final payment of the work shall be made within two weeks.

4. Though it is contended that such written intimation was not given, in the document handed over by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent dated 26.04.2022, which is the report submitted by the Assistant Engineere, L.I.D. & EW Division Wayanad District Panchayat, it is admitted that on the information received that the work has been completed, an inspection was conducted and found that the majority of the sheets used for laying the roof were of 0.35 mm. Since as per the communication dated 26.04.2022, an intimation has been given regarding the completion of the work, it is incumbent on the part of the 1st respondent to have taken measurement of the work and check measurement within a period of one week. The 1st respondent is not aware whether any such measurement has been done. Whatever that be, so as to

2025:KER:80586

understand the factual position available, I am of the view that at least now the measurement of the work and check measurement shall be done by the 1st respondent without any delay, if not already done.

5. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to verify the fact of completion of work and the measurement of the work and check measurement and submit a report in this regard before this Court within a period of one month from today. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent also submits that after the check measurement is done and on being satisfied with the work done, they have no objection in paying the amount to the Beneficiary Committee with whom they have executed Ext.R1(a) agreement. Therefore, the report to be filed by the 1st respondent shall also contain the amount that they have finalised to be paid to the Beneficiary Committee.

Post on 09.04.2025."

3. The 1st respondent would submit that pursuant to the

direction issued by this Court, the matter was examined and a

valuation was taken, and a copy of the valuation report is also

produced along with the memo. The stand taken in the report is that

only 25% of the work was done using 0.50 mm thickness sheet

which is originally agreed upon, and the balanace 75% is done with

sheets having only width of 0.35 mm which is in deviation to the

agreement and that the petitioner has not submitted any revised

estimate and therefore, what is payable as on date is only

Rs.8973.97/- i.e. for 25% of work done with 0.50 mm thickness.

2025:KER:80586

4. Heard both sides.

5. It is true that major portion of the work has not been done

as agreed upon inasmuch as 75% of the laying was using sheets

having 0.35 mm thickness, but the fact remains that the petitioner

has completed the work of laying the sheets, though as not agreed

upon. The learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would

submit that if a revised estimate is submitted by the beneficiary

committee, an appropriate decision in this regard will be taken, as

the agreement is between the petitioner and the 5th respondent.

6. Taking into consideration the above facts and

circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:-

1. Petitioner may submit a revised estimate before the 5 th

respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

2. The 5th respondent shall in turn submit the same before the 1 st

respondent within a period of two weeks thereafter.

3. On receipt of the same, the 1 st respondent shall take a decision

on the request made by the petitioner through the 5 th

respondent after affording an opportunity of being heard to the

petitioner and the 5th respondent. A decision in this regard shall

be taken within an outer limit of two months thereafter, and

after considering the contentions whatever admissible amount

2025:KER:80586

due shall be paid to the 5 th respondent without any delay at

any rate within an outer limit of one month thereafter, who

shall pay to the petitioner amount due to him.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

sbk/-

2025:KER:80586

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9644/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE WAYANAD DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit-R1(a) The true copy of the agreement dated 15.10.2020 and bearing number AEE/LSGD/WYD/75/2020-21 executed between the Assistant Executive Engineer, Wayanad District Panchayath and Mr. Sivadas N, the convener of the Beneficiary Committee Exhibit-R1(b) The true copy of the letter dated 23.09.2021 sent by the Convenor of the Beneficiary Committee to the Assistant Executive Engineer of the District Panchayath Exhibit-R1(c) The True Copy of the letter dated 25.11.2021 issued by the Executive Engineer, LID and EW Division of the District Panchayath to the Convenor of the Beneficiary Committee Exhibit-R1(d) The true copy of the Decision No 20/1 dated 05.01.2022 of the District Panchayath