M ARUMUGAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a WRIT of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records pertaining to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No,2874/98/A4 dated 16.12.2003 and quash the same and direct the respondents to settle the balance amount of Rs.2, 84,000/- to the petitioner as per the measurement in the 'M' Book of the 3rd respondent.) The WRIT Petition is filed praying to issue a WRIT of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records pertaining to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No,2874/98/A4 dated 16.12.2003 and quash the same and direct the respondents to settle the balance amount of Rs.2, 84,000/- to the petitioner as per the measurement in the 'M' Book of the 3rd respondent.

(2.) THE brief facts for disposal of the case is as follows: - THE writ petitioner is a registered contractor and doing work with the Attur Panchayat Union. He was regularly undertaking the development work under the fund allotted to the Members of Parliamentary Constituency Local Area Development Scheme and the Members of Legislative Assembly Constituency Local Area Development Scheme. In this regard, a tender was floated by the second respondent Project Officer for forming road between Eachampatti and Thalavaipatti. Petitioner is the successful bidder and he states that work was allotted on 12.2.1998. It is also stated by the petitioner that an agreement was signed between the petitioner and the third respondent Block Development officer, Attur for the above said work. According to the petitioner, he has to lay metal road with tar coverage both in the plain and hill area. Petitioner submits that the respondent department official directed the petitioner to remove the stones and rocks from the area before laying the metal road with tar coverage, which resulted in additional expenditure for which no amount was paid by the respondent department. Since additional work was entrusted by the officers of the respondent department, petitioner sought for more funds over and above the agreed amount. According to the petitioner, he removed the rocks and stones and laid a mud road. He raised a bill for Rs.6.5 lakhs. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.3, 61,000/- was released leaving a balance sum of Rs.2, 84,000/-. Petitioner made representation to the District Collector and the Minister for Local Administration requesting them to direct the authorities to release the balance amount. Petitioner also made representation to the respondents. On 23.1.2002, the Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Salem called upon the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Accounts Officer to verify the claim of the petitioner and give a report. Copy of such Memorandum was served on the petitioner as well. In that Memorandum, time has been fixed to submit the report on or before 25.1.2002. It is not clear whether the report has been filed as stated. THEreafter, on 16.12.2003, the Block Development Officer passed the impugned proceedings cancelling the work allotted to the petitioner in the year 1998. Third respondent, while passing the impugned order, relied upon the report of the Project Officer, the second respondent dated 6.11.2003. In the impugned order, it has been stated that based on the report of the Project Officer, a meeting was conducted on 13.10.2003 by the Committee and that Committee recommended the cancellation of the work. Pursuant to the decision of the Committee, the third respondent Block Development Officer issued proceedings cancelling the work order. Challenging the same present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) THE learned Additional Government Pleader stated that even as per ground (c) of the writ petition, the writ petitioner did not lay the metal road with tar coverage in terms of the agreement. THErefore, the order was cancelled based on inspection report. THE claim of the petitioner is disputed by the respondent Department. He, therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition stating that the petitioner should seek appropriate remedy based on records and the nature of work done by him, if he satisfies the terms of agreement.