C.V. ISSAC Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts projected in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: The petitioner who is a PWD Contractor, entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent Block Panchayath for constructions of Kottamala Chittoor Nadeshan Padesham Lift Irrigation Scheme 2016-2017. According to the petitioner, he completed all procedures and completed the work covered in Ext.P-1 as per the agreement on 31.3.2017 except the laying of KSEB electric power line, for which materials were to be provided by the Panchayath, and subsequently he requested for final bill for an amount of Rs.3,95,901/- inclusive of security deposit. Without considering the fact that the incompletion of work was due to the negligence from the part of Panchayath, Ext.P-3 notice was issued to the petitioner. At the same time the respondent Panchayath did not make the payments so far. The respondents are also reluctant of making the payment of beneficiary contribution to the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non payment of final bill with security deposit and beneficiary contribution, illegally withheld by the Panchayath. It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:

(2.) Heard Sri.Saijo Hassan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for R-1 (State) and Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon, learned advocate appearing for R-2 to R-4.

(3.) The petitioner would aver that he has duly completed all the works as per the agreement he has entered into with the respondent Attappady Block Panchayath, except laying of the KSEB electric power line, as relevant assistance in that regard was not provided by that department. In that regard, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Attappady Block Panchayath ought to have taken steps and should have collected the requisite applications from the beneficiaries to be submitted before the KSEB authorities, and since that was not done, the laying of KSEB electric power line could not be completed by the petitioner, and the said omission cannot be attributable in any manner to the petitioner, and it is on account of the negligence of the respondent authorities, which is beyond the control of the petitioner. That, without considering these vital and relevant facts that the impugned Ext.P-3 notice has been issued without any legal reasons, wrongly contending that the petitioner has failed to complete the work within time, etc. The petitioner would then contend that the further action of the respondent Block Panchayath in not even giving any monies for the works actually done by the petitioner is highly illegal, improper and arbitrary, which warrants interdiction in the present writ proceedings, etc.