The petitioner is challenging the revenue recovery steps initiated against her at the instance of the 6th respondent Grama Pachayat, for realisation of the alleged loss sustained with respect to implementation of a project under the 'Peoples Planning Programme'. Petitioner was the convenor of a beneficiary committee constituted for implementation of the project, for construction of a 'Vanita Industrial Unit. Ext.P1 agreement was executed with respect to implementation of the work, between the 6th respondent Panchayat and the petitioner in her capacity as convenor of the beneficiary committee. It is admitted that an amount of Rs.81,453/- was paid by the 6th respondent to the beneficiary committee. Fact remains that the work in question was not fully completed. According to the petitioner, the work could not be fully completed because of non co-operation of respondents 6 and 7 in taking appropriate steps during the relevant time, despite submission of various representations. It is stated that, during May 2003 the petitioner and other members of the committee had submitted requests for relieving them from the responsibility of execution of the work, after producing copies of all the vouchers and bills with respect to the work already executed. According to the petitioner, out of the amount of Rs.81,453/- a sum of Rs.79,857/- was already spent for the work and the balance amount was kept in the Bank Account of the beneficiary committee. Therefore Ext.P6 representation was submitted to the Block Level Advisory Committee to take appropriate steps for completion of the project. But the matter was kept pending without any decision. Long after the 6th respondent had issued Ext.P8 demand requiring the petitioner to make payment of a sum of Rs.74,711/-, alleging that out of the amount of Rs.81,453/- only a sum of Rs.36,453/- was utilised and there remains a balance of Rs.45,000/- to be refunded, along with interest at the rate of 18% amounting to Rs.29,700/-. The petitioner alleges that, the estimation of the cost of work already done was made without notice to the petitioner, in a totally improper manner. On receipt of Ext.P8 the petitioner had submitted Ext.P9 before the 6th respondent explaining the above aspects and contending that the demand for payment of Rs.45,000/- is totally unsustainable. Despite receipt of Ext.P9 explanation the 6th respondent had issued Ext.P10 notice threatening coercive steps for realisation of the amount. Even though the petitioner submitted a further representation as per Ext.P11, the revenue recovery steps were initiated and Ext.P12 notice was issued against the petitioner. Even though the petitioner had approached 2nd respondent in Ext.P13 representation, the request was not considered. Hence being aggrieved by the coercive steps initiated under Ext.P12, this writ petition is filed.
2. Contention of the petitioner is mainly on the aspect that the impugned recovery steps initiated by the 6th respondent Panchayat is vitiated by violation of principle of natural justice. The quantification of the cost of the work already completed was done in a unilateral manner, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Despite the fact that the petitioner had produced all bills and vouchers related to the expenditure for the construction already completed, the same was not taken note of by respondents 6 and 7. The estimation was done behind back of the petitioner in a unilateral basis. It is also alleged that the respondents have failed in taking appropriate steps for completion of the project, despite various requests made. Further it is contended that the balance amount out of the advance received is kept in the Bank Account of the beneficiary committee, which was not taken note of by respondents 6 and 7.
3. Fact remains is that the project was left at an incomplete stage. There is no case that the work in question was completed by re-tendering or entrusting the work with any other person. The only allegation is that the petitioner has not fully utilised the amount of advance disbursed by the 6th respondent. The quantification with respect to the balance is made based on an estimation of the work completed. But as contended by the petitioner, such an estimation is done behind back of the petitioner, without affording her any opportunity. There is nothing to indicate that the respondents 6 and 7 had taken note of the bills and vouchers produced with respect to the expenditure incurred. However it is obligatory on the part of respondents 6 and 7 to afford adequate opportunity to the petitioner while fixing liability if any against her. Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on a decision of this court in Shriram Engineering Construction Co. Ltd. v. K.S.I.D.C. [2007 (2) KLT 388] in order to contend that only settled and fixed dues can be recovered through machinery under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The Act does not create any new right, but only provides a process for speedy recovery of the money due remaining settled, which are either admitted or adjudicated and settled. Dues cannot be demanded and recovered through Revenue Recovery proceedings according to whims and fancies of the parties, is the findings.
4. In the case at hand, it is evident that no proper adjudication is made before fixing liability on the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the coercive steps of recovery initiated are not legally sustainable. Hence this court is of the considered opinion that a direction to conduct an adjudication for settlement, with proper opportunity afforded to the petitioner, would suffice to meet the ends of justice.
Therefore this writ petition is allowed and Exts.P8, P10 and P12 are hereby quashed. The respondents 6 and 7 are given liberty to initiate fresh steps against the petitioner for fixing the liability if any due from her, after conducting proper adjudication with respect to the quantification, with opportunity afforded to the petitioner.
Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE MJL