BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14/10/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P(MD)No.8078 of 2008 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008 K.Karuppaiah . . . Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, (Building Construction), Chennai - 600 005. 2.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, (Building Construction), Madurai-2. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, (Building Construction), Madurai-2. . . . Respondents PRAYER Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to second respondent in Letter No.A1/983/2008 dated 30.04.2008 is illegal and quash the same, further direct the second respondent to disburse the balance amount of Rs.4.93 lakhs and along with consequential interest to the petitioner within a stipulated period. !For Petitioner ... Mr.A.S.Gopalamanikandan ^For Respondents... Mr.D.Sasikumar Government Advocate * * * * :ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as
Mr.D.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate, who took notice on behalf of the
respondents.
2. A run through narration of facts and figures which are absolutely
germane and necessary for the disposal of this writ petition as stood exposited
from the averments in the affidavit accompanying the petition would run thus:
The petitioner in pursuance of the contract work allotted to him by the
respondents, performed his part of the contract in constructing a hostel and a
sum of Rs.4.93 lakhs is yet to be paid by the respondents in favour of the
petitioner, for which incessant demands were made to them, which invoked no
positive response by them. On the other hand, to the great shock and surprise
of the petitioner he was informed by the respondents, as though despite the
respondents having taken steps to pay the said sum to the petitioner, they could
not get sanction and comply with the other formalities.
3. From the respondent’s side, nothing is forthcoming so as to torpedo the
averments in the affidavit of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placing reliance on
the grounds as found set out in the writ petition, would convincingly and
correctly, appropriately and appositely putforth the petitioner’s case that this
is a pathetic case, in which the petitioner, who promptly performed his part of
the contract, has been made to run from pillar to post for recovering the dues
towards him. This cannot simply be taken as a contractual default committed by
the respondents, but it is a serious one that even though there is no fault on
the part of the petitioner, he has been made to suffer because of the inaction
on part of the Government’s side and accordingly in this factual matrix issuance
of writ of mandamus is just and proper.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also inviting and drawing the
attention of this Court to the letter addressed by the Executive Engineer,
Madurai to the petitioner would develop his arguments to the effect that at
paragraph No.3 of the said letter it is clearly found spelt out and detailed and
delineated that the sum of Rs.4.93 lakhs (Four lakhs and ninety three thousand)
is payable by the respondents in favour of the petitioner. Hence, in such a
case, the writ of mandamus is being issued directing the respondents to disburse
the balance amount of Rs.4.93 lakhs to the petitioner within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ
petition is allowed. Consequently, connected M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008 is closed.
smn
To
1.The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
(Building Construction),
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
(Building Construction),
Madurai-2.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Department,
(Building Construction),
Madurai-2.