THE SECRETARY Vs. ANTONY JOSEPH S/O. JOSEPH,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent in the writ petition, the Kanjirappally Block Panchayath seeks review of my judgment in the writ petition passed on the 23rd March, 2007. The writ petitioner is the first respondent in the R.P. and second and third respondents are respectively respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition. The additional 4th respondent in the RP was impleaded subsequently. The writ petitioner is the Convener of the Committee for Constructing Neerkuzhy and Kundoorkayyala, a work granted by the Kerala Rural Development Department, District Rural Development Agency, Kottayam to be done under the SGRY Scheme of Kanjirappally Block Panchayat in its Chenappady Division. The writ petition was filed by him seeking inter alia a writ of mandamus directing the review petitioner Block Panchayat to release the amounts due to the writ petitioner under Ext.P1 agreement. The writ petition was disposed of by me issuing the following directions:

(2.) THE review petitioner submits that after receiving copy of the judgment the Panchayat took all its earnest efforts to comply with the directions of this Court. Respondents 2 and 3 started to take out the measurements with notice to the respondent and the concerned beneficiaries. They recorded the measurement of the work as pointed out by the writ petitioner. Due to adverse weather conditions and outbreak of epidemics the work of recording measurements could not be completed within the specified time. After the measurements were recorded it was compared and crosschecked with Ext.P5. It was then revealed that the works claimed to have done by the respondent is far in excess of the works sanctioned in Ext.P1. It was seen that as against the sanctioned quantity of 3500 sq. mtrs. a total of 10,819.35 sq. mtrs. of Kayyalas were constructed. It was also revealed that majority of the works claimed to have been done were not upon the properties of the beneficiaries selected by the Panchayat. Hence Ext.P5 was subjected to a thorough scrutiny and it was disclosed that it was prepared on 7 -5 -2003. It is pointed out that the admitted case of the petitioner is that he completed the execution of the work only in June 2003. The review petitioner submits that it means that the Agricultural Officer recorded the measurements at least one month prior to the completion of the work by writ petitioner, which is hardly believable. It is also pointed out that there is a column in Ext.P5 for amount of subsidy claimed. The total amount of subsidy for the Kayyalas was Rs. 3,10,000/ - and for Neerkuzhies was Rs. 11,200/ -. Since the projects under SGRY SCP were fully financed by the Government there were no subsidies under that project. It is accordingly submitted that Ext.P5 relates to some other work and has no connection with the works mentioned in Ext.P1. The review petitioner also submits that as Convener as per Clause 3 of Ext.P1, the writ petitioner was bound to keep true and correct accounts of all incomes, expenditure of the work for the purchase of materials, hire charge of tools and machineries, wages of labourers with all supporting vouchers and cash bills. After completion of the work in all respects, accounts will be closed within one week and all account books, muster rolls, cash bills and vouchers will be produced before the Panchayat along with an income and expenditure statement. As per Clause 4, all amounts required for payment for the execution of the work shall be drawn through cheques subject to the decision of the committee. As per Clause 9 final bill shall be paid after verification of the accounts with supporting vouchers produced by the Convener. As per Clause 10, payment will be limited to the actual expenditure incurred by the Convener or within 50% excess over the estimate cost based on the PWD rates of 1996, whichever is less. The petitioner was directed under Annexure -A letter dated 18 - 10 -2007 to produce muster rolls, receipts and vouchers which he was bound to keep as per the terms of Ext.P1. On 26 -10 -2007 he submitted Annexure -B letter dated 23 -10 - 2007 stating that he had submitted all the records in May 2003. Since the admitted case of the respondent is that he completed the work only in June 2003, his case in Annexure -B that he submitted muster roll, vouchers, receipts etc. in May 2003 is highly improbable. Stating the above facts the review petitioner Panchayat seeks review of the judgment.

(3.) REFERRING to the contention of the review petitioner that the Executive Engineer made another inspection of the site and found that no work was done in a satisfactory manner it is submitted that the above inspection was conducted after the writ petition was filed marking Ext.P5 and if the review petitioner was of the opinion that Ext.P5 is not a genuine document then he ought to have taken appropriate action before the appropriate authority against the additional 4th respondent. It is pointed out that no action was taken or initiated against additional 4th respondent only because the measurement leading to Ext.P5 was done by additional 4th respondent upon the direction issued by the review petitioner himself.