IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 28945 of 2004(U)
1. ABRAHAM JOSE, VELLAPILLIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY, NARAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJI MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :25/01/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.28945 of 2004
----------------------------------
Dated this 25th day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed by a contractor to the
Narakkal Grama Panchayat complaining of non payment of the
bills even after satisfactory execution of the works. The total bill
amount is Rs.2,59,649/-.
2. The Panchayat has filed a detailed counter affidavit
producing Ext.R1(B) resolution of the Panchayat by which it is
decided not to make payments for the time being, but payments
should be made only after appropriate instructions are received
in the matter from the Deputy Director of the Panchayat. It is
stated in the counter affidavit that Ext.R1 (b) was forwarded to
the Deputy Director on 7.6.2004 as soon as decision was taken.
The Panchayat Secretary is yet to hear anything from the Deputy
Director on Ext.R1(b). The Deputy Director was impleaded as
additional 3rd respondent. The Government Pleader is yet to get
instructions from the additional 3rd respondent. He is having
instructions only from the Executive Engineer. Obviously,
Ext.R1(b) is pending before the additional 3rd respondent. There
WPC No.28945/2004 2
is no justification for the additional 3rd respondent not taking
any decision on the request of the Panchayat made through the
last paragraph of Ext.R1(b). The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits hat out of the total bill amount of
Rs.3,59,649/- the disputed portion is only Rs.52,330/-. The
learned counsel for the Panchayat however would refer to the
3rd para in Ext.R1(b) and submit that the the engineers have
reported that the bridge constructed by the petitioner is sinking.
The above submission is strongly refuted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner who invited my attention to Ext.P2. In fact
Ext.P2 is issued by the Executive Engineer. The learned
Government Pleader submitted that as per the instructions
received from the Executive Engineer the defects have been
rectified. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that
there is no justification for withholding the entirety of the
amounts payable to the petitioner under the bill submitted by
him. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand disposed of with
the following directions:
1). the additional 3rd respondent will take a decision on the
request of the Panchyat in Ext.R1 (b) ( if not already taken ) and
WPC No.28945/2004 3
communicate the decision to the Panchayat under intimation to
the petitioner within one month of receiving a copy of this
judgment. In the meanwhile the Panchayat will release part
payment of Rs.1,50000/- ( Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thounsand
only) to the petitioner against the bills submitted by him. This
the Panchayat will do within three weeks of receiving a copy of
this judgment.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Judge
dpk