## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON**
## **THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/17TH MAGHA, 1935**
**WP(C).No. 19922 of 2008 (V) ----------------------------**
**PETITIONER :**
**----------**
**P.V.RAJAN, S/O.KUNJUKUTTY, AGED 47 YEARS, PARAYIL HOUSE, KALAMKULLAM, POTTASSERY PIN.678598, PALAKKAD DISTRICT**
**BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN**
**RESPONDENTS:**
**-----------**
**1. THE PALAKKAD JILLA PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE JILLA PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD DISTRICT**
## **2. TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY) MANNARKAD.**
**3. THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL POTTASSERY.**
**R1 BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR**
**SRI.MANU GOVIND**
**R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P. PADMALAYAN**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**BP**
## **WP(C).No. 19922 of 2008 (V)**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :**
- **P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT 29/3/2001 OF THE R1.**
- **P2: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE PTA COMMITTEE DT 12/2/2001.**
- **P3: COPY OF THE VOUCHERS AND RECEIPTS IN RELATION TO THE PURCHASE OF THE MATERIALS.**
- **P4: COPY OF THE BUILDING, MATERIALS SO PRUCHASED WHICH STILL LYING UNUSED IN THE PREMISES OF THE SCHOOL.**
- **P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DT 31/7/2001 OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRDA PALAKKAD.**
- **P6: PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BUILDING IS STANDING WITHOUT A ROOF**
- **P7: COPY OF THE REQUEST DT 18/11/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PTA COMMITTEE AND THE R2 BEFORE THE R1.**
- **P8: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BENEFICIARY COMMITTEE DT 20.8.2001.**
- **P9: COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 27/1/2004 OF THE R3.**
- **P10: COPY OF THE REPLY TO P8 SEND THROUGH REGISTERED POST ACKNOWLEDGMENT DUE.**
- **P11: COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 30/1/2006 ISSUED BY THE R1.**
- **P12: COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.**
- **P13: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 7 & 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.**
- **P14: COPY OF THE ORDER DT 28/12/2006 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.**
- **P15: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 13/7/2007 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.**
- **P16: COPY OF GO(P) NO. 676/97/FIN. DATED 6.8.1997.**
**RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.**
**//TRUE COPY//**
**P.A. TO JUDGE**
**BP**
## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.**
========================
W.P.(C). No. 19922 of 2008
-------------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of February, 2014
## **JUDGMENT**
The petitioner is challenging the recovery proceedings pursued by the respondents for realization of the amount allegedly due in connection with the mobilization advance and such other amounts came to the hands of the petitioner, as convener of the beneficiary committee, mulcted with the task of changing the roof of a Government School building.
2. The sequence of events is as follows:
The petitioner's son was studying in the Government Higher Secondary School, Pottassery and the petitioner came to be selected as President of the PTA for the academic year 1999 - 2000. While so, the tiles of the roof of the school building was sought to be changed and necessary proposal was made before the concerned authorities. The building was examined by the authorities of the Public Works Department and the concerned Engineer certified that the building was strong enough to hold concrete roof. In the course of further proceedings, the first
W.P.C. No. 19922 of 2008 -2respondent/District Panchayath agreed to sanction a sum of 2₹ lakhs, out of which 50,000/- was given by way of mobilization₹ advance. The PTA also arranged funds from other sources and raw materials were purchased utilizing the available funds. Ext.P3 is the receipt with regard to the purchase of raw materials as above and said raw materials are lying in the premises of the School as borne by Ext.P4, P6 and P15 photographs, which reveal that, construction was started and the tiled roof was already removed.
3. While so, somebody filed a complaint before the authorities pointing out that the existing building was not strong enough to hold 'concrete roof'. Considering the same, Ext.P5 'stop memo' was issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, DRDA Palakkad; by virtue of which the petitioner had to stop the work. In view of the turn of events, the PTA and the 3[rd] respondent/Principal, who is the 'Implementing Officer' sought for permission of the first respondent to construct another building in the premises, making use of the raw materials already purchased. Ext.P7 is the application filed in this regard, which however was not responded to.
W.P.C. No. 19922 of 2008 -3-
4. In the course of further proceedings, the accounts with regard to the funds provided and the expenditure incurred by the petitioner were subjected to scrutiny by the concerned committee consisting of seven members, who approved the same as borne by Ext.P8 in August, 2001. By the next year, petitioner's son completed his studies and came out of the School and as a natural consequence, the petitioner also had to come out of the 'PTA', since he was no more a parent of the student of the school. About '3 years' later, the petitioner was served with Ext.P9 notice issued by the third respondent asking to produce the accounts, which was duly replied by the petitioner as per Ext.P10. Thereafter, the first respondent issued Ext.P11 notice, almost in similar lines and threatening the petitioner of RR proceedings. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P12 reply, explaining the entire facts and circumstances, also pointing out that the amount given to the petitioner has been effectively utilized and that the raw materials purchased were still lying in the premises of the School. Even the steel purchased at the rate of 16.50 per kilogram would fetch not less than 25/kg as on₹ ₹ that date, by virtue of increase in market price and further that,
W.P.C. No. 19922 of 2008 -4-
no loss had been caused to the first respondent or any others from the part of the petitioner in this regard. It is without any regard to the actual facts and figures that the matter has been caused to be pursued by way of RR proceedings as borne by Ext.P13, demanding a sum of 99,500/- and such other charges.₹
5. The petitioner approached the Government to intervene immediately, in view of the innocence of the petitioner. Eventhough Ext.P14 interim order was passed by the Government earlier, the petitioner was subsequently let known as per Ext.P15, that the RR proceedings could be withdrawn, only if the requisitioning authority was ready to withdraw the requisition. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition, also contending in the light of Ext.P16 guidelines, that the entire proceedings are per se wrong and unsustainable in all respects.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader at length.
7. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, apart from the merits as mentioned herein before, the respondents are not justified in proceedings with RR steps
W.P.C. No. 19922 of 2008 -5-
without having the same quantified in accordance with the law. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision reported in **Shriram Engineering Construction Co. Ltd v. K.S.I.D.C** (2007 (2) KLT 388). It is also pointed out that, despite the pendency of this matter before this Court for more than five years, no counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. The third respondent alone has filed a counter affidavit in the year 2013, simply stating that the petitioner had not submitted any accounts. It is asserted that the petitioner was asked for the accounts only in the year 2004 as per Ext.P4, which was duly responded to, as per Ext.P5 and also as per Ext.P10, in response to Ext.P9 notice issued by the first respondent.
8. The undisputed factual position is that, the petitioner was only the convener of the beneficiary committee who purchased raw materials as borne by Ext.P3, which were lying in the premises of the School and the PTA and the third respondent/Principal had sought for permission of the first respondent to construct a fresh building, making use of the raw materials lying in the premises. It is also an undisputed fact that the raw materials available were having much higher market
W.P.C. No. 19922 of 2008 -6-
value, as on date, in view of the increase in the market price and that the accounts submitted by the petitioner were approved by the committee consisting of seven members as borne by Ext.P8. These facts are not disputed from the part of the respondents, more so, when no counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. The version of the third respondent/Principal that, no account was submitted by the petitioner; referring to the notice issued after three years, by which time the petitioner had come out of the 'PTA' as his son had already completed his studies in the school, is not liable to be accepted. Similarly, no process was there for quantification of the due amount, if any, before proceeding with steps under RR Act, so as to sustain Ext.P13, in the light of the decision cited supra.
In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, Exts. P9, P11 and P13 are set aside. The writ petition is allowed to the said extent.
No cost.
## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.**
kp/-
