IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2611 of 2006(J)
1. BIJU THOMAS, S/O.C.J.THOMAS,
... Petitioner
2. P.S.SUNIMON, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN,
3. T.V.PAUL, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 85 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR,,
3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.
For Petitioner :SRI.P.P.JNANASEKHARAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :19/02/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
...........................................
WP(C).NO.2611 OF 2006
............................................
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioners submit that they are registered borewell
contractors. It is seen that following the severe drought that was
prevailing in the State during 2004, emergency measures were taken by
the Government for providing water to the drought-hit areas. One of
the step implemented was to dig borewells and erecting hand pumps. It
is stated that as part of the Scheme, in the Idukki District, petitioners
were awarded work of digging borewells and they started work on
20.3.2004.
2. It is stated that by Exts.P2 and P3, sites were identified by the
third respondent and the sites mentioned in Exts.P2 and P3 were alloted
to the petitioners. They completed the work and the final bill in relation
to the sites mentioned in Ext.P2 was submitted on 12.4.2004.
Similarly, the final bill in relation to the sites mentioned in Ext.P3 was
submitted on 5.5.2004. It is stated that by Ext.P4 and also by a
subsequent demand draft, only part payments were made to the
Wpc 2611/2006 2
petitioners 2 and 3 and no payment was made to the first petitioner. As
at present, petitioners submit that an amount of Rs.2,70,248/- is due to
the first petitioner, Rs.1,55,202/- to the second petitioner and
Rs.1,88,215/- is due to the third petitioner. Representations made for
payment of aforesaid amounts did not yield any result. It is in these
circumstances the writ petition is filed.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. In
the affidavit, the fact that the contract was awarded, sites were
identified by the third respondent and the petitioners executed the work
under the supervision of the third respondent, are not in dispute. It is
stated that a total number of 29 works were thus awarded and executed
by the petitioners and that out of the 29 works, amount in respect of 11
sites was paid by the District Collector. In so far as the remaining sites
are concerned, it is stated that although payment was recommended,
amount was not disbursed by the District Collector. The reason
according to the second respondent is that in some cases, the wells have
gone dry and in some cases, installation of pumps were not possible. It
is stated that such cases have been treated as incomplete works and for
Wpc 2611/2006 3
incomplete works, District Collector did not approve or disburse
payment.
4. The learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions
from the District Collector which also supports the view of the
statements made by the second respondent in the counter affidavit.
According to the District Collector, non payment was due to the reason
that the wells have gone dry and in some cases, installation of the
pumps was rendered impossible. It is stated that it was therefore that
the works were treated as incomplete and hence he did not disburse the
amount based on the bills submitted by the petitioners. In such a
situation, if the wells have gone dry or for technical reasons, pumps
could not be installed, Contractors like the petitioners cannot be
faulted. If at all it was due to any negligence or latches on the part of
the officials of the third respondent or any other department, it is open
to the authorities to take appropriate action against such erring
officials. However, it is no reason to withhold payments to the
petitioners who had executed the work and their bills should be paid.
5. In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of directing that
Wpc 2611/2006 4
the respondent should pay the amounts that are due to the petitioners,
whih are also recommended to the District Collector. The District
Collector shall disburse the necessary funds for settlement of the claim
made by the petitioners. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible,
and at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
lgk