AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The only controversy in the above writ petition is the refund of the amounts drawn by the petitioner, on behalf of the Beneficiary Committee, with respect to the award of a construction work by the Panchayath for the construction of the Women''s Industrial Centre (Vanitha Vyavasaya Kendram). The case of the petitioner is that the original estimate of the Panchayath for the specified work was Rs. 3,35,000/- and 25% of the said estimate being Rs. 75,400/- was accepted as advance amounts. However, there was a discrepancy in the preparation of the estimate, which, did not include the quantum and value of steel, which was necessary for the construction. Hence, a revised estimate was submitted after the amounts taken as advance was expended for purchase of sand, rubble and other construction materials. It is the specific case of the petitioner that due to the inexperience of the Beneficiary Committee members, they failed to notice the omission to include steel in the original estimate and it was only on commencement of construction that, this was noticed and a revised estimate submitted. It is the contention of the petitioner that though the Beneficiary Committee was willing to carry on the work, the Panchayath did not sanction the revised estimate and that resulted in the work not being continued and concluded. In such circumstance, on the strength of Ext. P1, the petitioner contends that there is no question of any refund since the entire amounts received as advance was expended for purchasing construction materials; which is evidenced by Ext. P1 series.
Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayath would submit; placing reliance on the documents produced along with the counter affidavit, that, the agreement with the Beneficiary Committee was executed on 03.03.2011 (Ext. R1(a)) and the petitioner had accepted the advance amount on 03.03.2011 itself as is evidenced by Exts. R1(b) and R1(c). The learned counsel fairly submits that, the contention that steel was not included in the estimate is correct and Ext. R1(d), the original estimate, amply demonstrates it. However, the learned counsel would point out that the submission on behalf of petitioner that the revised estimate was not sanctioned in time and that, resulted in the work not been continued and concluded, is prima facie false and incorrect. To substantiate the same he refers to Ext. R1(e), the revised estimate showing an amount of Rs. 4,52,000/- and the resolution Ext. R1(f) sanctioning the said amount as early as on 13.06.2001. This according to him included the quantum and value of steel required for the construction. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that, the amounts were not sanctioned as per the revised estimate, falls to the ground. The petitioner also has not chosen to file any reply affidavit controverting the averments of the Panchayath. Evidently it was not the lapse of the Panchayat but the petitioner''s own laxity in carrying on with the work awarded to the Beneficiary Committee.
What remains is the liability of the petitioner for refund of the amounts which is stoutly resisted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Ext. P1 series. However, it is to be noticed that in the counter affidavit of the Panchayath, it has been specifically stated that Rs. 50,000/- out of the advance amounts was remitted in three installments on 22nd, 25th and 31st of January, 2005. With respect to the balance amount, it is also submitted that Rs. 4,000/- for which the petitioner had submitted valid bills was also given set-off from the advance amounts. Ext. P1 series, the learned counsel for the Panchayath would assert, was never produced before the Panchayath. Looking at the entire facts and circumstances as also the acquiescence of the petitioner in remitting Rs. 50,000/-, it cannot be understood as the petitioner having not known about the revision of estimate nor can he be permitted to challenge the liability to refund, without having produced valid bills. It is also to be noticed that, the valid bills produced before the Panchayath has already been given due credit. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merit. However, considering the plea made by the counsel and looking at the facts and circumstances it is directed that, the Revenue Recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance and shall be given up, if the petitioner deposits the balance amount of Rs. 22,000/- within a period of three months from today. If such amounts are not deposited, the Panchayath is entitled to revive and carry on with the Revenue Recovery proceedings, in the event of which the petitioner shall be liable to pay interest also. However, if the amounts as directed by this Court is deposited within the time stipulated, the liability shall be considered to be satisfied entirely; without any interest being charged on the same.
The Writ Petition (Civil) is disposed of as above.
No Costs.