DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE Vs. M.V.RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is preferred by the respondents in W.P.(C) No. 2465 of 2020 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 07.04.2021, whereby the writ petition was allowed and held as follows:

(2.) Material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The writ petitioner was a successful bidder in Ext. P1 e-tender dated 29.01.2015 for transportation of paddy seed in lorries from seed processing centres of Padaseksharam Samithi (Association of paddy fields), farms, go-downs under various krishi bhavans to various krishibhavans and Padasekharam Samithi (associations of paddy fields) on hire. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has successfully carried out the contract during the period 2015-2016 and he submitted the bills for payment. So also, the Kerala State Seed Development Authority--2nd appellant extended the period further based on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14124 of 2016 and issued a new work order, evident from Ext. P3 dated 21.04.2016. Altogether, the writ petitioner has submitted 37 invoices with connected way bills and documents. As per the invoices, an amount of Rs. 1,45,19,629.40 was due to the writ petitioner. However, the second respondent sanctioned only an amount of Rs.1,25,50,732.35 without assigning any reason for the deduction of the amount. Therefore, according to the writ petitioner, an amount of Rs.20,68,897.05 is remaining due to the writ petitioner.

(3.) The case of the writ petitioner is that in spite of submission of several representations, produced as Ext. P5, the appellants have not taken any action to ventilate the grievances and accordingly, the writ petitioner has approached this Court and secured Ext. P6 judgment dated 25th January, 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 2278 of 2019, whereby the writ court directed the second appellant to consider Ext. P6 representation after hearing the writ petitioner also. Accordingly, the second appellant conducted hearing on 20.03.2019 and 18.05.2019; however, the claim of the petitioner was rejected, evident from Ext. P7. Against Ext. P7 order, the writ petitioner has submitted Ext. P8 appeal before the Director of Agriculture--the first appellant and consequent to the delay in considering the same, the writ petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 16447 of 2019 and secured Ext. P9 judgment, whereby the writ court directed the first appellant to take a decision within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Director, however, dismissed the appeal as per Ext. P10 order dated 01.10.2019 and later Ext. P11 order dated 10.10.2019 was also passed. It was, thus, challenging the proceedings of the appellants that the writ petition was filed.