P.J.JACOB Vs. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The review, filed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.19931 of 2012, is on the ground that the re-arranged work is not the one granted to the petitioner. Two writ petitions were rejected by a common judgment and the review is filed from only one. The writ petitions were both from the termination of a contract awarded, the first from the termination and the second from the demand for rearrangement. Hence the termination as affirmed by this Court has attained finality.

(2.) The petitioner, admittedly, was awarded a work as seen from Exhibit P1, for which he had bid at Rs.1,23,15,334.00. The work awarded was the construction of road from Pattassery to Kadaichira. This Court need not go into the details of the work carried out and the circumstances in which it was terminated, the same having been elaborated upon in the judgment under review. Suffice it to notice that Exhibit P8 dated 16.10.2007 was issued terminating the work and Exhibit P10 was the demand for Rs.90,23,952/-.

(3.) This Court had noticed that the petitioner's contention was that there was local opposition and, hence, the work could not be completed as agreed upon. It was specifically found that the petitioner had executed certain supplemental agreements; the petitioner having not completed the work in time, which belied the contention of opposition to the work. The petitioner had also executed certain portion of the work, for which a payment of Rs.31,91,382/- was received by him. The subsequent communications for examining the progress of the work made by the Government was not responded to by the petitioner. Even for computation of the work completed, the communications were not responded to by the petitioner. It was in such circumstances the Government terminated the work by Exhibit P8 and demanded the amount required for the balance portion, from the petitioner. This Court had also found that at the quantification stage the petitioner did not appear before the Government and, there could be no contention raised of the petitioner having not been participated in the quantification.