A.G. VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. PAZHAYANNUR BLOCK PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the non -consideration of the petitioner's request to relieve him from a contract without risk and cost by the respondent Block Panchayath, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

(2.) THE petitioner was awarded the work, "NABARD -RIDF XI -Formation work to Mappilakulambu -Amaloor -Kanassery Road in Pazhayannur Block", by the 1st respondent panchayath. The probable amount of contract (PAC) of the said work was 98 lakhs. This was prepared on the basis of the 2004 PWD schedule of rates. The petitioner alleges that the funding of the aforesaid work was to be shared between the 1st respondent panchayath and NABARD in the ratio of 20:80; i.e., 19,60,000 was to be funded by the 1st respondent and the remaining amount of 78,40,000/ - was to be funded by NABARD; and the amount funded by NABARD was to be disbursed to the 1st respondent panchayath through respondents 4 and 5. Thus, according to the petitioner, as far as the subject work is concerned, respondents 4 and 5 were the disbursing agents of the share allotted by NABARD. The petitioner alleges that on 05.03.2007, he entered into Ext. P1 agreement with the 2nd respondent (for and on behalf of the 1st respondent panchayath) for the due execution of the subject work. As per Ext. P1 agreement, the subject work was to be completed on or before 30.06.2009. The petitioner alleges that pursuant to execution of Ext. P1 agreement, though he was ready and willing to commence the work immediately, the same could not be done owing to reasons solely attributable to respondents 1 and 2 such as non -handing over of the site, non -measurement/approval of initial levels, non -removal of electric posts etc. The site was handed over to the petitioner on 06.07.2007 and the initial levels were measured and approved on 23.11.2007; and later, on 14.03.2008 and 30.10.2008, the encroachments and electric posts were removed from the site. According to the petitioner, he somehow managed the heavy loss on account of tremendous increase in materials and labour costs to complete 75% of the work and the only work remained to be done was tarring. The petitioner alleges that by that time, the cost of bitumen increased several folds making it impossible for the petitioner to purchase the same at the current market price. According to the petitioner, he could have purchased the required quantity of bitumen at far lesser rate during the time stipulated in Ext. P1 if the work had not been unduly delayed by the panchayath. The petitioner further alleges that though he requested for revision of rates, the same was also not granted by the 1st respondent panchayath. Therefore, according to the petitioner, owing to the reasons solely attributable to the 1st respondent panchayath and for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, the subject work has become totally frustrated. Later, on being fully convinced that subject work has become totally frustrated and that the petitioner is in no way responsible for the same, the 1st respondent panchayath, as per Exts. P23 and P27 resolutions, held that the petitioner is entitled to be relieved from the work without any risk and cost after settling the bills for the work already done by the petitioner. The petitioner's grievance is that thereafter, the 1st respondent referred the matter for the concurrence/permission of the 5th respondent for relieving the petitioner from the subject work and till date, no orders have been passed and communicated to the petitioner by the 5th respondent in the matter. The petitioner's grievance is that while so, without referring to Exts. P23 and P27 resolutions, the 2nd respondent has issued Ext. P28 to the petitioner stating that the time for completion of the subject work has been extended up to 31.03.2011, and accordingly, directed the petitioner to complete the subject work before the said period and to submit the final bill. It was further stated in Ext. P28 that the petitioner would be made responsible for all the consequential losses that may be occasioned to the 1st respondent panchayath or the Government, which, according to the petitioner, is absolutely illegal and unjust. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

(3.) ARGUMENTS have been heard.