IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17851 of 2009(B)
1. C.CHANDRAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE PRINCIPLE GENERAL MANAGER,
3. THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER,
4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (PHONES),
For Petitioner :SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH
For Respondent :SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU,SC,B.S.N.LTD.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :21/08/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.17851 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 21st August,2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner undertook the work of digging
trenches,laying cables and other connected works as
evidenced by Ext.P1. He made a security deposit of
Rs.1,50,000/- at the time of executing Ext.P1 agreement.
According to him, he commenced the work on 14.3.2003
and completed the work on 12.5.2003. The officers in the
department took measurements belatedly and there was
delay in submitting the bill. Bill was processed. It seems
that the bill was returned and there was a direction by the
Sub Divisional Engineer as per Ext.P5 to resubmit the bill.
Ext.P5 reads as follows:
“With reference to the letter cited above,
the bill is returned to you for furnishing the
following items/information. Kindly resubmit the
bill early.
1. No stamped receipt in the bill
2. Condon of the delay in submission of
the bill by the Area Manager.
3. Difference in 5 pair cable account
between M Book and work order.
4. Original of the work order is
requested.
5. The allocation of the bill is in a non-
W.P ( C) No.17851 of 2009
2
operative estimate. The bill should be included in
an operative/revised estimate for processing.”
2. It is the petitioner’s case that except the stamp
receipt no other condition can be satisfied. Hence the
writ petition praying for the following reliefs.
a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
respondents to pay the bill amount and security
deposit due to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 and
P3 with interest @ 12% from 1.1.2004 till
payment.
b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing
the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of
Ext.P6″
3. A statement has been filed by the respondents.
Counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner has to
give an explanation, for the delay in the submission of the
bill. Petitioner is willing to do the same. It is further
submitted that the details of difference in 5 pair cable
account between M Book and work order should also be
explained by the petitioner. This also the petitioner is
willing to do. In so far as the original of the work order is
concerned, it seems that the petitioner is not in possession
of the same. Petitioner shall give explanation as to why he
W.P ( C) No.17851 of 2009
3
is not in possession of the original work order. The
operative/revised estimate as regards the bill as
contemplated by para 5 in Ext.P5 shall also be submitted
by the petitioner. This shall be done within one month from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereupon,
the petitioner’s bill shall be processed and amount due to
him shall be disbursed within one month thereafter.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No.17851 of 2009
4
W.P ( C) No.17851 of 2009
5