KUNHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Original Petition, Petitioner challenges Ext. P5 notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act and also prays for a declaration that no amount is due by him by way of compensation.

(2.) THE petitioner was awarded with a contract for providing water supply scheme to tribunal colonies at Puzhappathoor and Illiyambam in Wynad District as per work orders dated 18.8.1991 and 22.2.1981 by the third respondent, viz., the Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Sulthan Batherry, Wynad District. On completion of 90% of the said work, the petitioner had to leave India on getting an employment in Soudi Arabia in the year 1983. The work was thereupon entrusted with one Moosa as his agent with the concurrence of the third respondent. According to the petitioner, he returned to India in 1991 when he received Ext. P1 notice, it is stated that the aforesaid Moosa had not completed the work and the work was executed through some other contractor and the petitioner was liable to compensate the loss occurred to the Department. The third respondent demanded a sum of Rs.64,667/- by way of damages. The petitioner sent Ext. P2 reply. The petitioner disputed his liability to pay any amount by way of compensation. The third respondent again issued Ext. P3 demanding the amount and the petitioner sent Ext. P4 reply. Thereafter, the petitioner received Ext. P5 revenue recovery notice. It is challenging the above notice that this Original Petition is filed.

(3.) COUNTER affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 3. It is stated in the counter affidavits that the Executive Engineer gave extension of time upto 15.2.1984 at the request of Moosa. He has also been informed that no further extension would be given. However, he had not come forward to start or to complete the work. It is further stated that as per the agreement, the Department is entitled to recover the loss sustained by it from the contractor.