2025:KER:29715 WP(C) NO. 2436 OF 2017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. MONDAY, THE 7th DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 2436 OF 2017 PETITIONER/S: C.A.MOHAMOOD AGED 55 YEARS S/O.HASSANKUTTY, PWD CONTRACTOR,PULIKUNNU, KASARAGOD 671 121. BY ADV JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS DIVISION, KANNUR 670 001. 3 THE TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY, KASARAGOD 671 121. 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER THALANGARA, KASARAGOD 671 121. SRI.DHEERAJ A.S, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29715 WP(C) NO. 2436 OF 2017 2 MOHAMMED NIAS C. P. , J. …………………………………………. W. P. (C) No. 2436 OF 2017 ………………………………………………. Dated this the 07th day of April, 2025 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Contractor who carried out the work of improvement of the Koothuparamba-Mooriyad Valiyavelichan Growth Centre road (Km.0/000 to 6/000). The petitioner had completed the work on 30.03.2011. The challenge is to the recovery proceedings initiated by the government against the petitioner as regards the rate of one of the items of the work completed for which payment has been effected. 2. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the Government read as follows:- “6. It is brought to the kind attention of this Hon'ble Court that as per Accountant General's para A1 of the inspection report No.ES 11(W)/IV/2-1/47/13- 14/427 dated 07.03.2014 it was found that the rate of the extra item No.3 of the work was wrongly given an Rs.7709/M³ instead of Rs.7709/10M³ resulting an amount of Rs.54,90,803/- paid as excess. 7. On the basis of this report, the CC bills of the work were reviewed and found that the bill amount comes to Rs.3,47,46,637/-instead of Rs.402,37,450/- 2025:KER:29715 WP(C) NO. 2436 OF 2017 3 resulting an amount of Rs.46,49,266/- was paid as excess. For realizing this erroneous payment a revenue recovery proceedings had initiated against Sri. C.A. Mahamood PWD Contractor, through the District Collector, Kasaragod vide Req No.RR/2014/2598/14 dated 24.06.2014.” 3. A reading of the above shows that the amounts due to the petitioner was reviewed on account of the objection raised by the Accountant General dated 07.03.2014, which alleged that the rate for the extra item No.3 of the work was wrongly given as 7709/M³ instead of 7709/10M³, resulting in making an over payment of Rs.54,90,803/-. The revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated based on the above quantification. 4. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was ever put on notice regarding the above discrepancy. The quantification has been made without the junction of the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, the revenue recovery proceedings initiated cannot be allowed to proceed without taking a decision on the issue of quantification based on the guidelines/norms in existence at the time of the contract/performance of the work in question. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Shree Rameshwara Rice 2025:KER:29715 WP(C) NO. 2436 OF 2017 4 Mills, Thirthahalli [(1987) 2 SCC 160] to contend that the respondents, who are parties to the contract, cannot be allowed to quantify the amounts. 6. True, the correctness of the allegation made by the Accountant General has to be verified by an authority who is not party to the contract. It is more so because there is no dispute about the quantity/quality of work done and the only dispute is with regarding the rate to be applied. This is a matter, which shall be decided with reference to the relevant documents. 7. The Contractor also claims that out of the total bill payable, Rs.9 lakh is still due to be paid. Be that as it may, the prayer in the writ petition is to quash Exts.P6 and P8. Ext.P6 is a demand before the attachment of land. Ext.P8 is the order passed by the District Collector based on the objection given to him by the petitioner under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. 8. The fact remains that the correctness of the objection raised by the Accountant General was not decided by anyone who is not a party to the contract. Since it is admitted that the above exercise was not done, there will be a direction to the State of Kerala to constitute a Committee, comprising two Secretaries, with no connection with the affairs of the Public Works Department. The Committee 2025:KER:29715 WP(C) NO. 2436 OF 2017 5 will hear the petitioner to decide on the question of correctness of the observations made by the Accountant General concerning the rate of the extra item No.3. The Committee will also give copies of the documents to be relied on by them to the petitioner. Orders, in accordance with law, shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, no steps for recovery shall be taken against the petitioner till a decision is taken as directed above and communicated to him. The Writ petition is disposed of as above. SD/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE JJ 2025:KER:29715 WP(C) NO. 2436 OF 2017 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2436/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.7.2014 IN W.P.(C) 17701/13. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 14.4.14. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 11.8.14. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.1.8.14 EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.6.15 IN W.P.(C) 22596/14. EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED.16.12.2016 EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 31.12.16. EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.1.2017. EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION SHEET EXHIBIT-P10: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 22.09.14 Exhibit-P11 True copy of the relevant pages of the measurement book endorsed by the Executive Engineer. Exhibit P-12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27-2-2025 GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.