Pondy govt's act in recovering excess amount from contractor

The Puducherry government's action in recovering excess amount paid to a contractor for a work done nearly 30 years ago has been upheld by the Madras High Court.
Justice S Vaidyanathan upheld the action of the Puducherry government recovering the excess payment made to a contractor for strengthening the tank bund of Ousteri lake in the union territory for work done in 1978-79.
The judge said when there is an erroneous excess payment, it can be demanded or recovered by means of distraint proceedings.
"The said proceedings is only summary, as calculation alone needs to be made and excess payment to be demanded/recovered. There is no need for any clarification or modification by the civil court or any forum regarding the amount due before the proceedings," he said.

The judge was dismissing a petition from Sri Raman Constructions challenging the proceedings, on January 22.
The petitioner submitted that in 1978-79, the Puducherry government notified a tender to strengthen the Western bund of Ousteri tank. Their tender was accepted, work commenced in April 1978 and it was successfully completed.

The final bill was settled by the authorities on November 15, 1991. After a lapse of one year, on December 14, 1992, the Revenue department claimed a sum of Rs 2.49 lakh on the ground that it was "overpaid inadvertently".
Disputing this, the petitioner then moved the High court.
Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the judge observed that when there was an arithmetical calculation, there is no need for detailed adjudication, as, based on the records, revenue recovery proceedings shall be initiated.

With regard to the delay, the judge referred to provisions of the 'Puducherry Limitation (Repeal of Local Laws) Act, 1994,' which grants a 30-year time limit to recover the amount due and said the question of delay, as raised in this court, was not correct.
Hence, the amount claimed to be paid by the petitioner was well within 30 years time.
"In fine, I find no merits in the contentions of the petitioner and there is no need to interfere with the impugned distraint order. The proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act is perfectly in order," the judge said and dismissed the petition.