Ponmala Grama Panchayat vs Assistant Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies (General)

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner-Panchayat/defendant is aggrieved with the order of the Arbitration Court, as upheld by the Tribunal.

Admittedly there was some drinking water schemes, for which the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent/plaintiff for supply of materials. The petitioner having not paid up the amounts in accordance with the supply orders, on the bills raised by the 2nd respondent, Exhibit P1 Arbitration Case was filed. The claim raised was specifically with respect to two drinking water schemes, at Vattapparambu and Thenparambu. The 2nd respondent produced 21 documents, which were marked as Exhibits P1 to P21 before the Arbitration Court.

The petitioner appeared before the Arbitration Court and filed Exhibit P2 objection. The main objection of the petitioner was that the stock register maintained by the Panchayat did not indicate supply of goods. The Panchayat did not have the records evidencing such supply, was the contention.

Admittedly the drinking water schemes were completed, presumably under a Beneficiary Committee. Looking at the various correspondences between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, the Arbitration Court came to the finding that the petitioner/defendant is liable to pay Rs. 1,29,394/- with interest at the rate of 11% from 30.10.2000. In fact but for filing an objection, the petitioner produced nothing to substantiate the claim except certain audit reports, which does not at all bind the 2nd respondent. It is also to be noticed that the primary contention of the petitioner was that the petitioner did not have any documents regarding the supply made by the 2nd respondent. That cannot by itself negative the claim of the 2nd respondent when the 2nd respondent by production of sufficient material proved the liability of the petitioner.

In appeal also, while the petitioner admitted the contract with the 2nd respondent for supply of material, the refrain was that the Panchayat did not have anything to evidence such supply. The Appellate Tribunal found that since the drinking water schemes were commissioned and since the petitioner did not have a case that the materials were purchased from any other source other than that of the 2nd respondent, the mere fact that there were no stock recorded and purchase bills maintained for the period 1999 to 2001 would not lead to an automatic conclusion that the claim of the 2nd respondent is belied. The Tribunal referred to the various documents produced by the 2nd respondent and found that the non-maintenance of proper records with the Panchayat cannot be a reason to absolve the Panchayat from the liability to pay the price of the goods supplied. The petitioner/appellant was found to have not adduced any evidence despite time being granted.

In the context of the production of the bills raised by the 2nd respondent and the negligence of the Panchayat insofar as not adducing evidence to counter the same, this Court finds no illegality in the order passed by the Arbitration Court, as affirmed by the Tribunal. The writ petition, hence, would stand dismissed. No costs.