M.K.RAVINDRAN Vs. VAKATHANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only controversy in the above writ petition is the refund of the amounts drawn by the petitioner, on behalf of the Beneficiary Committee, with respect to the award of a construction work by the Panchayath for the construction of the Women's Industrial Centre (Vanitha Vyavasaya Kendram). The case of the petitioner is that the original estimate of the Panchayath for the specified work was Rs,3,35,000/- and 25% of the said estimate being Rs.75,400/- was accepted as advance amounts. However, there was a discrepancy in the preparation of the estimate, which, did not include the quantum and value of steel, which was necessary for the construction. Hence, a revised estimate was submitted after the amounts taken as advance was expended for purchase of sand, rubble and other construction materials.

(2.) IT is the specific case of the petitioner that due to the inexperience of the Beneficiary Committee members, they failed to notice the omission to include steel in the original estimate and it was only on commencement of construction that, this was noticed and a revised estimate submitted. It is the contention of the petitioner that though the Beneficiary Committee was willing to carry on the work, the Panchayath did not sanction the revised estimate and that resulted in the work not being continued and concluded. In such circumstance, on the strength of Ext.P1, the petitioner contends that there is no question of any refund since the entire amounts received as advance was expended for purchasing construction materials; which is evidenced by Ext.P1 series.

(3.) WHAT remains is the liability of the petitioner for refund of the amounts which is stoutly resisted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Ext.P1 series. However, it is to be noticed that in the counter affidavit of the Panchayath, it has been specifically stated that Rs.50,000/- out of the advance amounts was remitted in three installments on 22nd, 25th and 31st of January, 2005. With respect to the balance amount, it is also submitted that Rs.4,000/- for which the petitioner had submitted valid bills was also given set-off from the advance amounts. Ext.P1 series, the learned counsel for the Panchayath would assert, was never produced before the Panchayath. Looking at the entire facts and circumstances as also the acquiescence of the petitioner in remitting Rs.50,000/-, it cannot be understood as the petitioner having not known about the revision of estimate nor can he be permitted to challenge the liability to refund, without having produced valid bills. It is also to be noticed that, the valid bills produced before the Panchayath has already been given due credit.