Disputes over the quality of contracted work and related recoveries should be resolved through the appropriate state authority rather than solely by local governing bodies.

JUDGMENT

The case set up in this WP(c) is as follows: The petitioner, a contractor, was entrusted with the work of construction of Mavilakunnu Canal Road of Ward No. 14 of the 5th respondent Gramapanchayat on 02.01.2016. The work was carried out to the satisfaction of the 5th respondent Panchayat and the total value of the work done was submitted for Rs.1,99,999/-. The said amount was sanctioned after due verification. Later during the floods, the road was damaged and the 5th respondent Panchayat as per Ext.P3 decision resolved to recover the entire amount from the petitioner. Ext.P2 report of the Asst. Engineer reveals that the road was damaged not because of the fault of the petitioner. Ext.P2 report was ignored by the 5th respondent panchayat while passing Ext.P3 decision. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 under Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act before the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P4 petition which is numbered as DA 4341273/2020. Ext.P4 is pending consideration. In the meanwhile the 3rd respondent, Deputy Tahasildar, initiated revenue recovery proceedings as per Ext.P6 to recover an amount of Rs.2,51,344/-. The writ petition is filed seeking to direct the 1st respondent to expedite Ext.P4 and to further direct respondents 2 to 4 to keep in abeyance Ext.P6 revenue recovery proceedings till the final outcome of Ext.P4 pending before the 1st respondent.

2. Heard Sri.D. Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K.J. Manuraj, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri. S. Nirmal, learned counsel appearing for R5 and R6 & Kayakodi Gramapanchayat.

3. Sri.D. Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made submissions in tune with the WP(c). Per contra, Sri. S. Nirmal learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 (Kayakodi Gramapanchayat) would submit that the petitioner cannot legally challenge Ext.P3 by taking recourse to a proceedings under section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act before the 1st respondent State Government and that, though, Ext.P3 styled as a resolution, in substance its content is a demand arising out of the alleged damages suffered by the respondent Panchayat due to the alleged deficiency in the quality of the work done by the petitioner in his contractual obligations and that therefore, the remedy of the petitioner could only be to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, by filing an appeal in terms of Section 276 (5)(a) which deals with such appellate remedy in the matters of assessment, demand etc. Section 276 of the deals with appeals and revision before the said statutory tribunal. Section

276(5) provides as follows:

“The provision under Rule 12(4) is only an additional or alternate remedy – There is no statutory inhibition compelling one to get confined to appeal or revision that is provided under Section 276 – Rule 12(4) is valid.

4. The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in terms of subsection 5 of Section 276 would deal only with the limited matters explicitly enumerated and covered in clauses a and b of Subsection 5 of Section 276 . Therefore, appeal would lie only in cases relating to assessment, demand and collection of taxes, fee or cess as per clause 'a' or in a case relating to grant of permission and licenses for trades, factories, markets and other establishments as covered by clause 'b' thereof. That indisputably, clause 'b' would not come into play and the word 'demand' appearing in clause 'a' should be read in conjunction with other words therein, assessment, demand and collection of taxes or fee or cess and that the subject matter of the appeal should either be in respect of assessment in relation to taxes or fee or cess or should be a demand of taxes, fee or cess after such due assessment or collection of taxes or fee or cess after such assessment and demand. That in the instant case, the decision taken by the respondent Gramapanchayat as pe