High Court Kerala High Court

Abmilidharan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Abmilidharan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 33206 of 2009(U)


1. ABMILIDHARAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

3. THE SECRETARY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :12/01/2010

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
              --------------------------------------------------
                 W.P.(C) NO.33206 OF 2009 (U)
              --------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010

                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioner completed the work of Pallipadi Kuttumanpadi

Bridge, on the basis of Ext.P1 agreement. According to him, the

work was completed on 2.11.2007 and final bill for Rs.10,82,233/-

was submitted on 25.2.2008. Petitioner submits that the only

reason for delaying the payment is that the fund is available only

for the maintenance work and the work done is to be paid from

the plan fund. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has

recommended payment from the maintenance fund but however,

the first respondent is not permitting disbursement.

2. Despite the matter having been taken up by the 3rd

respondent with the first respondent as early as on 20.8.2009,

vide Ext.P5, there appears to have been no progress in the

matter. If as stated by the petitioner, work has been executed to

the satisfaction of the awarder and final bill has been submitted,

he is entitled to be paid. If there is dispute about the amount

shown in the final bill, the admitted amount is to be paid. The

source from which such payment is to be made is to be found out

WPC.No. 33206/09
:2 :

by the awarded and any ambiguity in this behalf cannot leave the

petitioner in uncertainty.

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the

third respondent shall ensure that the admitted amount due to

the petitioner is paid, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate

within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

In the meanwhile, if necessary, it will be open to the 3rd

respondent to obtain necessary orders from the 2nd respondent.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/