M.Arumugam v. District Collector, Salem, Salem District

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 6.7.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARWrit Petition No.1622 of 2004 M.Arumugam. ... Petitioner vs.1.District Collector, Salem, Salem District.2.Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Salem.3.Block Development Officer, Attur, Salem District. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for recordspertaining to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in hisproceedings Na.Ka.No.2874/98/A4 dated 16.12.2003 and quash the sameand direct the respondents to settle the balance amount ofRs.2,84,000/- to the petitioner as per the measurement in the 'M'Book of the 3rd respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.C.SelvarajFor Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan, Additional Government Pleader -----O R D E RThe Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus calling for records pertaining to the orderpassed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.2874/98/A4dated 16.12.2003 and quash the same and direct the respondents tosettle the balance amount of Rs.2,84,000/- to the petitioner as perthe measurement in the 'M' Book of the 3rd respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The brief facts for disposal of the case is as follows:-The writ petitioner is a registered contractor and doing work withthe Attur Panchayat Union. He was regularly undertaking thedevelopment work under the fund allotted to the Members ofParliamentary Constituency Local Area Development Scheme and theMembers of Legislative Assembly Constituency Local Area DevelopmentScheme. In this regard, a tender was floated by the secondrespondent Project Officer for forming road between Eachampatti andThalavaipatti. Petitioner is the successful bidder and he statesthat work was allotted on 12.2.1998. It is also stated by thepetitioner that an agreement was signed between the petitioner andthe third respondent Block Development officer, Attur for the abovesaid work. According to the petitioner, he has to lay metal roadwith tar coverage both in the plain and hill area. Petitionersubmits that the respondent department official directed thepetitioner to remove the stones and rocks from the area beforelaying the metal road with tar coverage, which resulted in additionalexpenditure for which no amount was paid by the respondentdepartment. Since additional work was entrusted by the officers ofthe respondent department, petitioner sought for more funds over andabove the agreed amount. According to the petitioner, he removedthe rocks and stones and laid a mud road. He raised a bill forRs.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/-. Petitionermade representation to the District Collector and the Minister forLocal Administration requesting them to direct the authorities torelease the balance amount. Petitioner also made representation tothe respondents. On 23.1.2002, the Project Officer, District RuralDevelopment Agency, Salem called upon the Assistant ExecutiveEngineer and the Accounts Officer to verify the claim of thepetitioner and give a report. Copy of such Memorandum was served onthe petitioner as well. In that Memorandum, time has been fixed tosubmit the report on or before 25.1.2002. It is not clear whetherthe report has been filed as stated. Thereafter, on 16.12.2003, theBlock Development Officer passed the impugned proceedings cancellingthe work allotted to the petitioner in the year 1998. Thirdrespondent, while passing the impugned order, relied upon the reportof the Project Officer, the second respondent dated 6.11.2003. Inthe impugned order, it has been stated that based on the report ofthe Project Officer, a meeting was conducted on 13.10.2003 by theCommittee and that Committee recommended the cancellation of thework. Pursuant to the decision of the Committee, the thirdrespondent Block Development Officer issued proceedings cancellingthe work order. Challenging the same present writ petition has beenfiled. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 3.2.2004. All therespondents have been served on 29.3.2004. No counter has been filedso far. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Counsel for the petitioner stated that while passing theimpugned order dated 16.12.2003, which is challenged in the presentwrit petition, he submits that the impugned order cancelling thetender-cum-work order dated 12.2.1998 has been passed in violation ofprinciples of natural justice. No notice has been issued to thepetitioner before cancelling the work order. He stated that thepetitioner was not informed about the report of the Project Officerand the decision of the Committee which is relied in the impugnedorder. No counter has been filed to deny the contentions raisedin the writ petition with regard to the plea of violation ofprinciples of natural justice.5. The learned Additional Government Pleader stated that evenas per ground (c) of the writ petition, the writ petitioner did notlay the metal road with tar coverage in terms of the agreement.Therefore, the order was cancelled based on inspection report. Theclaim of the petitioner is disputed by the respondent Department.He, therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition statingthat the petitioner should seek appropriate remedy based on recordsand the nature of work done by him, if he satisfies the terms ofagreement. 6.From the events narrated above and even as per the stand takenby the petitioner in ground (c) of the writ petition, it is clearthat the petitioner has not completed the metal road with tarcoverage consequent to the high cost incurred in breaking the rocksand laying the road. It appears that a portion of the work has beencompleted. The petitioner claims the amount as per the tender-cum-work order. Whether the petitioner has executed the work in terms ofthe work order and the agreement and whether such work has beenmodified by the respondent officer should be decided in anappropriate forum based on records. This court is not inclined to gointo the facts which are in dispute on the face of records. Exceptthe averments made in the affidavit and reference in the variousproceedings, there is no clear admission of liability by respondents.7. There appears to be some reason for the Project Officer tocall for verification by the Assistant Executive Engineer and theAccounts Officer in the Memorandum dated 23.1.2002. In such anevent, this court cannot presume that the petitioner is entitled topayment of the balance amount as claimed in the writ petitionautomatically. 8. In so far as the plea with regard to the violation ofprinciples of natural justice is concerned, the petitioner has madeout a prima facie case. The impugned order refers to the report ofthe Project Officer and the proceedings of the Committee whichresulted in the third respondent passing the order cancelling thework said to have been given to him in the year 1998. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner's plea that the above proceedings have not been furnished.The petitioner has sworn to an affidavit filed in support of thewrit petition and stated that no notice was given before passingthe impugned order. Even on the face of the impugned order, thereappears to be no notice to the writ petitioner. The third respondenthas passed the order merely on the report of the Project Officer andthe Committee without an independent application of mind.Therefore, this court is inclined to interfere with the impugnedorder on the ground that the third respondent has passed theimpugned proceedings in violation of principles of natural justice. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. It ishowever, open to the respondents to proceed in the matter inaccordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity to thepetitioner to put forward his claim based on records. If no actionis taken by the respondents, it is always open to the petitioner toclaim the balance amount in accordance with law. The writ petitionis partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrartsTo 1.The District Collector, Salem, Salem District.2.The Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Salem.3.The Block Development Officer, Attur, Salem District.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.29384+1 cc to Mr.S.Mani, Advocate, SR.No.29230 W.P.No.1622 of 2004RSY {CO}TP/16.7.2009.