IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26025 of 2009(W)
1. GEORGE KURUVILLA, S/O. C.O.KURUVILLA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. THE BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.SATHISH NINAN
For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :09/03/2010
O R D E R
T.R.Ramachandran Nair, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.26025 of 2009
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a contractor who had undertaken the
work for tarring of Mundakkayam-Koruthodu-Mookkenpetty-
Pampavally Road 8/00 to 13/00. The work was completed and
towards the cost of Bitumen purchased from Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited, invoices were issued and the same were
submitted to the office of the Executive Engineer. The writ
petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to
effect payment of the invoice bearing No.6300039582 dated
2.6.2007 for a sum of Rs.2,15,434/- referred to in Ext.P1.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the invoice
submitted by him has been misplaced in the office of the
Executive Engineer. According to the second respondent, no
invoice is produced before the said respondent.
W.P.(C) No.26025 of 2009
– 2 –
3. The third respondent has filed an additional
counter affidavit also stating various aspects of the matter.
Finally, in paragraph 8, it is stated that if the petitioner gives an
undertaking before this Court that the invoice of which the
petitioner seeks duplicate has not been submitted before any
other authority including the Public Works Department for
encashment, duplicate can be issued. It is also specified in the
said counter affidavit that the petitioner and second respondent
shall jointly undertake that they would indemnify the third
respondent Corporation in respect of any liability, monetary or
otherwise, that would occur at a later date. The petitioner has
filed such an affidavit on 18.2.2010 swearing that he has not
submitted invoice bearing No.6300039582 dated 2.6.2007
before any other authority for encashment.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
third respondent submitted that the petitioner shall file an
undertaking before the third respondent also on similar lines
W.P.(C) No.26025 of 2009
– 3 –
and on furnishing such an undertaking, duplicate copy of the
original invoices which are stated to have been misplaced will
be issued to enable the petitioner to get the value of the bitumen.
If the petitioner files such an undertaking along with a copy of
this judgment, the third respondent will issue duplicate copies,
which will be produced before the second respondent for
encashment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
T.R.Ramachandran Nair,
Judge
vns