JOHN MATHEW Vs. PATHANAPURAM BLOCK PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a contractor by profession, who 1st entered into Ext.R1(a) Agreement with the respondent, for the construction of a road, in Thalavoor Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, he could not complete the work, within time, as specified in Ext.R1(a), since the 1st respondent did not take any steps to shift electric post, telephone cables and water line pipes, which were passing through the midst of the road. Though, the petitioner had made Exts.P2, P4 and P5 representation, requesting the 1st respondent, to take necessary steps to shift the electric posts, telephone cables, water line pipes etc. from the midst of the road, so as to complete the work, the 1st respondent has not taken any steps up to 15.10.2009. After a long lapse of the 1st respondent Panchayat time, Ext.P3 resolution, resolved to request the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Vilakudi, for shifting the electric posts from the work site.

(2.) According to the petitioner, more than this, there was no positive steps on the part of the respondent for shifting electric posts and water pipe lines from the midst of the road, upto 10.05.10. So, on 10.05.2010, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation to the first respondent requesting either to close the work at its completion stage or to increase the rate of work as per the schedule rate for the year 2010. Again the petitioner sent Ext.P5 letter to the first respondent with a reference that the electric posts and pipelines were not shifted from the midst of the road as requested by him. The first respondent was also convinced of the fact that the first respondent could not take effective steps to shift the pipelines and electric posts from the midst of the road. So the first respondent sent Ext.P6 letter, to the petitioner requesting him to submit an application seeking extension of time.

(3.) According to the petitioner when his earlier efforts to shift the pipelines and electric posts from the road did not evoke positive response from the part of the first respondent, he again sent Ext.P7 letter dated 23.03.2011 requesting to disburse the amount towards part bill for the work done by him in part and again made a reference as regards the shifting of electric posts and pipe lines. According to petitioner, to the surprise and utter dismay all on a sudden, the first respondent issued Ext.P9 registered notice stating that the first respondent in its meeting held on 11.8.11 resolved to inform the petitioner to proceed with the work, otherwise the work will be closed at the risk and cost of the petitioner and loss incurred to the Government will be realized from the petitioner. On receipt of Ext.P9, the petitioner sent Ext.P10 reply stating the reason for not completing the work and requested the petitioner from the work and to disburse the amount due to the petitioner for the work done in part by him. Subsequently, the first respondent sent Ext.P11, on receipt of Ext.P10, stating that due to inaction on the part of the petitioner an amount of Rs.23.35,286/ - is due to the Government by way of damages and petitioner is directed to remit that amount within 7 days to the office of the first respondent, otherwise Revenue Recovery steps will be initiated against petitioner for realizing the amount shown in Ext.P11. On receipt of Ext.P11, the petitioner sent Ext.P12 to the first respondent stating the real facts, the inaction on the part of the first respondent for shifting the electric posts, telephone materials and water line pipe from midst of the road enabling the petitioner to complete the work and for getting the amount due to the petitioner including damages. This is the grievance ventilated through the pleadings in this writ petition.