ARUMUGHAN V. P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these revision petitions arise out of CC No. 2/99 on the file of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, registered for offences under S.13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act') read with S.13(2) thereof and under S.409, 468, 471 and 120(b) IPC read with S.34 thereof.

(2.) The matter relates to alleged commission of offences in the formation of Main Canal of Moolathara Right Bank Canal under the Kuriarkutty - Karappara Irrigation Project of Kozhinjampara in Palakkad District. In the course of execution of the work, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) registered VC No. 1/97 under S.13(1)(c) and (d) read with S.13(2) of the PC Act and under S.409, 468, 471 and 120(b) IPC read with S.34 thereof against seven accused and submitted final report after due investigation in the case alleging that a loss to the tune of Rs.57,10,225/- is caused to the Government by disbursement of an amount of Rs.1,56,52,656/- to the contractor, who executed the work by measuring the quantity of the earth work done as 1,10,416.59 m3 as per the measurement book, whereas, actually, the earth work of 88,873.08 m3 costing Rs.99,42,431/- alone had been executed by the contractor, who is the seventh accused in the case. Consequently, further execution of the work also was caused to be stopped.

(3.) In the meanwhile, OP No. 445/00 was filed by certain residents of Kozhipathy Village, seeking for a direction to the Government being issued to resume and complete the canal work, which was stopped half way due to registration of the vigilance case, so as to have water provided to the petitioners in the original petition and other residents of Kozhipathy Village during that financial year itself, declaring further that the respondents therein are bound to provide water for drinking and irrigation facilities to the residents of Kozhipathy Village through the Moolathara Right Bank Canal. This Court, allowed the original petition vide judgment dated 23/02/2000. The direction in the judgment is extracted below for convenience of reference: