Court allows secondary evidence for claims regarding drinking water supply, emphasizing that absence of GPS data alone cannot invalidate an eligible claim.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner had entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent Panchayat for the supply of drinking water on the basis of the Government Order dated 15.02.2021, produced as Ext.R2(a). According to the petitioner, he supplied a substantial quantity of water, and though a major portion of the amount for the afore supply was paid, an amount of Rs.63,200/- was not paid to him, contending that there was no GPS data produced by the him in support of his contention that the tanker lorry was used for supplying water on certain dates.

2. Heard Sri.T.M.Abdul Latheef, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.A.Jani, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent Panchayat.

3. A statement dated 23.02.2026 has been filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent Panchayat, pointing out that an amount of Rs.5,94,750/- was sanctioned, and after deducting income tax, an amount of Rs.5,85,828/- has been paid to the petitioner. As regards the amount of Rs.63,200/-, which is the subject matter of dispute in this writ petition, the Panchayat takes the stand that, unless and until the GPS records are produced, the Panchayat would not be in a position to honour the afore amount in view of the mandate under Ext.R2(a) Government Order.

4. True, as per Ext.R2(a) Government Order, the person who supplied the water was supposed to produce the GPS details. However, a reading of Ext.R2(a) would show that GPS details are only primary evidence, which could be produced by the petitioner. In other words, the petitioner would be entitled to produce secondary evidence to show that the tanker lorry was used for the supply of water. This is especially in a situation where, as in the case at hand, the petitioner contends that during certain dates, the GPS was non-functioning. One cannot lose sight of the fact that, on certain dates, the GPS may not function, on account of which, the claim made by the petitioner, if otherwise proved, could not be rejected. In the case at hand, this Court notices that the petitioner has relied on Ext.P3 certificate, pointing out that there were network issues during certain periods, on account of which, as regards the vehicle number mentioned therein, the GPS could not record the exact details.

5. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that merely for the reason that the GPS details are not available, an otherwise eligible claim is not to be rejected.

Therefore, this writ petition would stand disposed of, permitting the petitioner to prove before the Secretary of the 2^nd respondent Panchayat, with secondary evidence to show that the tanker lorry was used for supply of water and the petitioner is also entitled for the additional amount of Rs.63,200/- and the tax payable thereon.

If the afore details are filed before the Secretary of the 2^nd respondent Panchayat, along with an appropriate application, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Secretary of the 2^nd respondent Panchayat to take a decision thereon with specific reference to the observations made in this judgment, within a period of four weeks thereafter. Needless to say that the petitioner would also be granted an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

Sd/-