P.B.Kabeer Khan vs State Of Kerala on 28 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 35779 of 2008(H)


1. P.B.KABEER KHAN, POTTAYIKANDATHIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS

3. CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, ROADS

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :28/08/2009

 O R D E R
                               S. Siri Jagan, J.
                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                       W. P (C) No. 35779 of 2008
                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                   Dated this, the 28th August, 2009.

                              J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who is a Government contractor, was awarded

the work of transporting bulk bitumen from the Cochin Refineries

Ltd., to various work sites coming within the jurisdiction of the 4th

respondent. In the course of execution of the work as per the

direction issued by the 4th respondent, the petitioner undertook

additional transporting work than what have been specified in the

agreement and he was informed by the 4th respondent that he had

already obtained sanction of revised estimate in that regard. But,

after the work was executed by the petitioner, the 4th respondent

took the stand that he is yet to get revised estimate sanctioned by

the appropriate authorities and unless revised estimate is sanctioned,

payment cannot be made to the petitioner. The work was completed

as early as in the month of June, 2007 and the petitioner is yet to

receive the money for the additional work done by him as directed by

the 4th respondent. It is under the above circumstances, the

petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief:

“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order commanding the respondents to disburse the
amounts payable to the petitioner for the entire work executed
pursuant to Ext. P1 work order including the amount covered by
the part bills registered as CC 47/07 dated 20-6-2007 and CC
49/07-08 dated 25-6-2007 within a time limit to be prescribed by
this Honourable Court.”

2. On 20-8-2009, I passed the following interim order:

“The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is that after
having asked him to transport bitumen in excess of the quantity for
which a contract has been entered into, the remuneration for the
excess work done is not being paid to the petitioner, on the ground
that the revised estimate for the excess work has not been

W.P.C. No. 35779/08 -: 2 :-

sanctioned. The fact that the petitioner has done additional work
is not disputed before me. Only contention is that revised estimate
for the additional work has not been sanctioned. I do not think
that this is a ground for denying payment to the petitioner for the
work done. If the revised estimate has to be sanctioned, it is for
the respondents to get it appropriately sanctioned. They cannot
deny payment to the petitioner on that ground alone. Therefore,
the learned Government Pleader shall get instructions from the
respondents as to within what time the respondents can pay the
amounts due to the petitioner for the extra work admittedly done
by him.

Post on 27-8-2009. Failing which this Court will fix a period
for such payment.”

3. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the

Government would require at least one more month’s time to consider

the question of sanction of revised estimate itself. I am of opinion

that whether the Government grants sanction for revised estimate or

not, insofar as the petitioner had undertaken the additional work on

the direction of the 4th respondent, the respondents are bound to pay

for the work done by him. Therefore, I do not think that the

respondents can ask the petitioner to wait indefinitely for payment

for the work done. The sanction of additional estimate is an internal

matter among the respondents, which cannot affect the right of the

petitioner to get payment for the work admittedly done by him as

directed by the 4th respondent, especially since there is no allegation

of any malpractice against the petitioner.

In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a

direction to the respondents to see that the amounts due to the

petitioner are paid as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within the

outer limit of three months from today.

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/