Latha Subrahmanian v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** ## **SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 3701 of 2008 (N)** ## **------------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S) : -------------------------** **LATHA SUBRAHMANIAN, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. BALASUBRAHMANIAN, KARIKKASSERY HOUSE, WARD NO.VI, NARAKKAL.** **BY ADVS.SRI.MADHU N.NAMBOOTHIRIPAD SRI.M.SUNIL** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :** ## **---------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR** - **ERNAKULAM.** ## **3. TAHSILDAR,** - **KOCHI.** **4. VILLAGE OFFICER, NARAKKAL.** **5. VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, NARAKKAL.** **6. NARAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NARAKKAL.** ## *** ADDITIONAL R7 IMPLEADED** ## **7. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, VYPIN BLOCK, VYPIN.** *** ADDITIONAL R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05.02.2008 IN I.A.NO.1856 OF 2008.** **R1 TO R5 & R7 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SOJAN JAMES R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. **WP(C).No. 3701 of 2008 (N) ----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THAT AGREEMENT DATED 03.03.2000 BETWEEN THE SECRETARY, NARAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH & THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2 SERIES (A TO E): TRUE COPIES OF VARIOUS REPRESENTATION GIVEN TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 SERIES (A TO L): TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST ALONG WITH THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS, WITH RESPECT TO AMOUNTS EXPENDED BY THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF MUSTER ROLL SHOWING THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS LABOURERS FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2001.** - **EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF MUSTER ROLL SHOWING THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS LABOURERS FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2001.** - **EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ALONG WITH ITS CERTIFICATE OF POSTING.** - **EXHIBIT P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE.** - **EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE R.R.DEMAND NOTICE.** - **EXHIBIT P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT.** - **EXHIBIT P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.D-486/02 DATED 06.04.2004** - **EXHIBIT P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P12: A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND CUM SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 19.05.2007 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P13: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P14: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------------------------** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** Msd. **P.A.TO JUDGE.** **C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------W.P.(C)No.3701 of 2008 ------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of December, 2014** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is challenging the revenue recovery steps initiated against her at the instance of the 6[th] respondent Grama Pachayat, for realisation of the alleged loss sustained with respect to implementation of a project under the 'Peoples Planning Programme'. Petitioner was the convenor of a beneficiary committee constituted for implementation of the project, for construction of a 'Vanita Industrial Unit. Ext.P1 agreement was executed with respect to implementation of the work, between the 6[th] respondent Panchayat and the petitioner in her capacity as convenor of the beneficiary committee. It is admitted that an amount of Rs.81,453/- was paid by the 6[th] respondent to the beneficiary committee. Fact remains that the work in question was not fully completed. ## **W.P.(C)No.3701 of 2008 2** According to the petitioner, the work could not be fully completed because of non co-operation of respondents 6 and 7 in taking appropriate steps during the relevant time, despite submission of various representations. It is stated that, during May 2003 the petitioner and other members of the committee had submitted requests for relieving them from the responsibility of execution of the work, after producing copies of all the vouchers and bills with respect to the work already executed. According to the petitioner, out of the amount of Rs.81,453/- a sum of Rs.79,857/- was already spent for the work and the balance amount was kept in the Bank Account of the beneficiary committee. Therefore Ext.P6 representation was submitted to the Block Level Advisory Committee to take appropriate steps for completion of the project. But the matter was kept pending without any decision. Long after the 6[th] respondent had issued Ext.P8 demand requiring the petitioner to make payment of a sum of Rs.74,711/-, alleging that out of the amount of ## **W.P.(C)No.3701 of 2008 3** Rs.81,453/- only a sum of Rs.36,453/- was utilised and there remains a balance of Rs.45,000/- to be refunded, along with interest at the rate of 18% amounting to Rs.29,700/-. The petitioner alleges that, the estimation of the cost of work already done was made without notice to the petitioner, in a totally improper manner. On receipt of Ext.P8 the petitioner had submitted Ext.P9 before the 6[th] respondent explaining the above aspects and contending that the demand for payment of Rs.45,000/- is totally unsustainable. Despite receipt of Ext.P9 explanation the 6[th] respondent had issued Ext.P10 notice threatening coercive steps for realisation of the amount. Even though the petitioner submitted a further representation as per Ext.P11, the revenue recovery steps were initiated and Ext.P12 notice was issued against the petitioner. Even though the petitioner had approached 2[nd] respondent in Ext.P13 representation, the request was not considered. Hence being aggrieved by the coercive steps initiated under Ext.P12, this writ petition is filed. ## **W.P.(C)No.3701 of 2008 4** 2. Contention of the petitioner is mainly on the aspect that the impugned recovery steps initiated by the 6[th] respondent Panchayat is vitiated by violation of principle of natural justice. The quantification of the cost of the work already completed was done in a unilateral manner, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Despite the fact that the petitioner had produced all bills and vouchers related to the expenditure for the construction already completed, the same was not taken note of by respondents 6 and 7. The estimation was done behind back of the petitioner in a unilateral basis. It is also alleged that the respondents have failed in taking appropriate steps for completion of the project, despite various requests made. Further it is contended that the balance amount out of the advance received is kept in the Bank Account of the beneficiary committee, which was not taken note of by respondents 6 and 7. 3. Fact remains is that the project was left at an incomplete stage. There is no case that the work in ## **W.P.(C)No.3701 of 2008 5** question was completed by re-tendering or entrusting the work with any other person. The only allegation is that the petitioner has not fully utilised the amount of advance disbursed by the 6[th] respondent. The quantification with respect to the balance is made based on an estimation of the work completed. But as contended by the petitioner, such an estimation is done behind back of the petitioner, without affording her any opportunity. There is nothing to indicate that the respondents 6 and 7 had taken note of the bills and vouchers produced with respect to the expenditure incurred. However it is obligatory on the part of respondents 6 and 7 to afford adequate opportunity to the petitioner while fixing liability if any against her. Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on a decision of this court in **Shriram Engineering Construction Co. Ltd. v. K.S.I.D.C. [2007 (2) KLT 388]** in order to contend that only settled and fixed dues can be recovered through machinery under the Kerala ## **W.P.(C)No.3701 of 2008 6** Revenue Recovery Act. The Act does not create any new right, but only provides a process for speedy recovery of the money due remaining settled, which are either admitted or adjudicated and settled. Dues cannot be demanded and recovered through Revenue Recovery proceedings according to whims and fancies of the parties, is the findings. 4. In the case at hand, it is evident that no proper adjudication is made before fixing liability on the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the coercive steps of recovery initiated are not legally sustainable. Hence this court is of the considered opinion that a direction to conduct an adjudication for settlement, with proper opportunity afforded to the petitioner, would suffice to meet the ends of justice. Therefore this writ petition is allowed and Exts.P8, P10 and P12 are hereby quashed. The respondents 6 and 7 are given liberty to initiate fresh steps against the petitioner for fixing the liability if any due from her, after ## **W.P.(C)No.3701 of 2008 7** conducting proper adjudication with respect to the quantification, with opportunity afforded to the petitioner. Sd/- **C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE** MJL