Madras High Court
Royal Electricals vs S.Kodikulam Town Panchayath on 23 April, 2021
1 S.A.(MD)NO.564 OF 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.564 of 2013
Royal Electricals,
Srivilliputhur.
Rep. By its A.Subburam ... Appellant/Respondent/
Plaintiff
Vs.
S.Kodikulam Town Panchayath,
Koomappatti through its,
Executive Officer,
Koomappati. ... Respondent/Appellant/
Defendant
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C., to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the learned
Principal District Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur in
A.S.No.32 of 201 dated 22.03.2013 reversing the Decree and
Judgment of the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar at
Srivilliputhur, in O.S.No.81 of 2007 dated 09.04.2011 and to
decree the suit by allowing this second appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Srinivasan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Alagusundar
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/13
2 S.A.(MD)NO.564 OF 2013
JUDGMENT
The appellant in this second appeal is the plaintiff in
O.S.No.81 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Virudhunagar
at Srivilliputhur.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that they have carried
out certain contract works for the respondent local body and
that the respondent had not paid for the same. To recover the
same, the said suit came to be instituted. The defendant local
body filed a written statement contending that though it is
true that the plaintiff had carried out the contract works for
the local body, the suit works were never entrusted or carried
out. The documents on which the suit came to be filed were
challenged as not genuine. The defendant pointed out that for
the work done by the plaintiff during the period from
17.05.2006 to 09.08.2006, the local body paid a sum of
Rs.3,37,946/-. The submission is when the plaintiff had been
paid for the works carried out for those three months in the
year 2006, it is inconceivable that for the suit works that are
earlier in point of time no payment was made. In fact from
this, the defendant would cast serious doubt as to whether the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3 S.A.(MD)NO.564 OF 2013
suit work was however entrusted at all. The plaintiff examined
himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.13. One
Murugesan, local body official was examined as D.W.1 and
Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.12 were marked through him. The learned trial
Judge vide Judgment and Decree dated 09.04.2011 decreed
the suit as prayed for.
3. The local body was directed to pay the plaintiff a
sum of Rs.1,01,720/- with interest at 12% from the date of
plaint till realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the local body
filed A.S.No.32 of 2011 before the Principal District Court,
Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. Vide Judgment and
Decree dated 22.03.2013, the Judgment and Decree passed by
the trial Court was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Aggrieved by the same, this second appeal came to be filed.
4. The second appeal was admitted on the following
substantial questions of law:-
“ (a) Whether the finding of the lower
appellate Court that the works carried out by
the appellant under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8 as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4 S.A.(MD)NO.564 OF 2013
contractor were not duly authorised by the
respondent/panchayat is perverse?
(b) Whether the lower appellate Court
has approached the points to be decided from
the wrong angle and this has vitiated the
entire reasoning and discussion of both the
Courts below in its Judgment?”
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of
grounds and called upon this Court to answer the substantial
questions of law in favour of the appellant and restore the
decision of the trial Court. He would point out that the
appellant is a qualified contractor. That the appellant was
carrying out contract works for the defendant local body is
beyond dispute. The defendant has admitted that the
substantial sum of money was paid for the works done during
the year 2006. Merely because, the bills raised for the
contract works carried out during the year 2006 were settled,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5 S.A.(MD)NO.564 OF 2013
that cannot necessarily lead to the inference that the earlier
contract works were also paid.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would further point out that the suit was laid on the strength
of work orders issued by the executive officer of the defendant
local body. He would also point out that the jurisdictional
assistant engineer had duly certified that the works have also
been carried out. According to the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, the first appellate Court without any
justification raised doubts and interfered with the well
considered decision of the trial Court. He prayed for allowing
the second appeal.
8. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent submitted that the first appellate Court was right
in reversing the decision of the trial Court and sought
dismissal of the second appeal.
9. I carefully considered the rival contentions and
went through the evidence on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6 S.A.(MD)NO.564 OF 2013
10. The primary defence projected by the local body is
that the work orders, namely, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8 are not genuine
documents. I went through all eight exhibits. Ex.A.1 work
order is for a sum of Rs.56,642/-. It is dated 02.07.2004. It had
been signed by one Thiru.P.Jeyachandrasekaran in his
capacity as executive officer of S.Kodikulam Panchayat,
Koomapatti, Virudhunagar District. Ex.A.2 has also been
signed by Thiru.P.Jeyachandrasekaran. But the seal dated
09.02.2006 indicates his designation as the executive officer
of the special village panchayat. In Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8,
S.Kodikulam Village is mentioned in the seal of the executive
officer as follows:-
Ex.A.1 Ng&uhl;rp
Ex.A.2 rpwg;G rpw;W}uhl;rp
Ex.A.3 rpwg;G rpw;W}uhl;rp
Ex.A.4 rpwg;G rpw;W}uhl;rp
Ex.A.5 rpwg;G rpw;W}uhl;rp
Ex.A.6 rpwg;G Cuhl;rp
Ex.A.7 rpwg;G rpw;W}uhl;rp
Ex.A.8 rpwg;G Cuhl;rp
11. The official seals found in the various work orders
are not uniform. In fact that is one of the main grounds taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7 S.A.(MD)NO.564 OF 2013
by the local body before the first appellate Court. The stamp
and seals are different in the various suit documents. It is well
settled that if the local body is the Town Panchayat, the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act ,1920
will apply. If it is a Village Panchayat, the provisions of the
Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 will apply. Here, the first
document on which the appellant is placing reliance indicates
the character of the local body as that of the Town Panchayat.
In any event, when the contract value is beyond a sum of Rs.
10,000/-, then certain procedures will have to be followed. In
this case, there is nothing on record to indicate that such a
procedure was followed. As rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents, in none of the work
orders, the proceeding number is mentioned.
12. I can take judicial notice of the fact that in any
official communication, Na.Ka.No. will be clearly mentioned.
In none of the said documents, Na.Ka. No. is mentioned. That
apart when the contract value is beyond Rs.10,000/-, the
contract has to be finalised only by a transparent tender
process. In the case on hand, there is nothing on record to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8 S.A.(MD)NO.564 OF 2013
show that there was any holding of tender process. For these
reasons the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that
the works if at all carried out by the appellant did not have
due authorisation from the local body. Sections 68 and 69 of
the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, are relevant.
They are read as follows:-
“68.Delegation of authority to contract and
contractual powers of persons appointed by Government
(1) A Council of the grade specified in column (1) of
the Table below may delegate to the Chairman or to a
committee consisting of two or more members the power of
making on its behalf any contract the value or amount whereof
does not exceed the sum specified in the corresponding
entries in column (2) of that Table :—
THE TABLE
Grades Maximum value or
amount
(1) (2)
1. (a) Special Grade Municipalities Rs.
50,000/-
(b) Selection Grade Municipalities 40,000/-
2. I Grade Municipalities 30,000/-
II Grade Municipalities 20,000/-
III Grade Municipalities and Town 10,000/-
Panchayats
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
9 S.A.(MD)NO.564 OF 2013
Provided that in the case of Municipalities included in
Schedule IX or notified under subsection (1) of Section 12-C,
the power of making on behalf of the Council all contracts
shall be exercised by a committee consisting of the Chairman,
the commissioner and one member of the Council elected by
it; and the Council shall not exercise or delegate the power of
making such contracts.
(2) In respect of a contract the value or amount
whereof exceeds the sums specified in column (2) of the Table
under sub-section (1), the sanction of the Council for the
making thereof shall be obtained before the same is made.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in the two preceding
sub-sections, any person appointed by the [State Government]
to carry any work into execution on behalf of a Municipal
Council may, subject to such control as the [State
Government] may prescribe, make such contracts as are
necessary for the purpose of carrying such work into
execution to the extent of the sum provided for such work ;
and the Municipal Council shall pay to the person so
appointed such sums as may be required for the said purpose
to the extent aforesaid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
10 S.A.(MD)NO.564 OF 2013
68-A. Rules regarding the conditions on which
contracts may be made .—The power conferred by Section
68 to make or sanction contract shall be subject to such rules
as may be prescribed in regard to the conditions on which,
and the mode in which, contracts may be made or sanctioned
by or on behalf of Municipal Councils.
69. Mode of executing contracts .— (1) Every
contract made by, or on behalf of, a Council, where of the
value or amount exceeds [one hundred rupees] shall be in
writing and except in the case of contracts made under the
provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 68 shall be signed by
two Municipal Councillors :
Provided that in the case of Municipalities included in
Schedule IX or notified under sub-section (1) of Section 12-
C, every such contract shall be signed by the commissioner.
(2) A contract executed or made otherwise than in
conformity with the provisions of this section, or Section 68,
and of the rules referred to in Section 68-A shall not be
binding on the Municipal Council. “
It is mentioned that if a contract has been executed or made
otherwise than in conformity with the provisions of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
11 S.A.(MD)NO.564 OF 2013
section, or Section 68, and of the rules referred to in Section
68-A, it shall not be binding on the Municipal Council.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
states that the present case would come under the Tamil Nadu
Town Panchayat Act. The appellant has not demonstrated
before this Court that the contract works were executed as
contemplated by law and with the prior authority of the local
body. D.W.1 who was examined on the side of the local body
has deposed that in their contract register, the suit works
have not been mentioned. There is no resolution of the local
body also.
14. In these circumstances, the substantial questions
of law are answered against the appellants. I confirm the
Judgment and Decree passed by the first appellate Court. This
second appeal is dismissed. No costs.
23.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
12 S.A.(MD)NO.564 OF 2013
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To:
1. The Principal District Judge,
Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur.
2. The Subordinate Judge,
Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur.
3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
13 S.A.(MD)NO.564 OF 2013
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
S.A.(MD)No.564 of 2013
23.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
