IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 194 of 2008(W)
1. K.P.CHANDRADASAN, S/O.APPUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, KUNNAMKULAM
For Petitioner :SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :06/01/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------
WP(C) No.194 of 2008 (W)
--------------------------
Dated, this the 6th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a contractor, who was awarded the work of
construction of a bus terminal cum shopping complex by the 1st
respondent. Agreement is dated 19/11/2004, and the period for
the completion of the work was agreed to be two years. According
to the petitioner, due to the fault of the Municipality, the work had
to be stopped. In this writ petition what he claims is that going by
Ext.P12, the Municipality itself has assessed that the petitioner has
executed the work valued at Rs.52,04,516/- and that as against
this, he was paid only Rs.44,31,774/-, and that therefore, the
Municipality should be directed to release the differential amount of
Rs.7,72,742/-.
2. The Municipality resisted the claim of the petitioner.
According to the Municipality, although, the petitioner was awarded
the work, which he ought to have been completed within two years
from the date of Ext.P1, the petitioner did not complete the work
and abandoned the same. It is stated that as a result thereof, the
Municipality has incurred a huge loss, which has been estimated at
WP(C) No.194/2008
-2-
Rs.8,93,00,000/-. It is stated that a resolution has been passed by
the Municipality to recover the aforesaid loss from the petitioner
and that by notice dated 17/08/2009, the payment has already
been demanded. It is stated that though the quantity of the work
executed by the petitioner has been valued, in view of the claim
against the petitioner, the Municipality is not liable to make
payment of any amount to him.
3. In a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, unless the liability is undisputed, this Court will not be
justified in directing payment. Although, this appears to be a case
where the petitioner has done some portion of the work, the value
of which has been assessed by the Municipality, the Municipality has
a claim against the petitioner for a huge sum. Therefore, the
liability is seriously disputed and in such circumstances, this Court
will not be justified in entering into the merits of the controversy
and no order can be passed as sought for in this writ petition.
Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his claim
against the respondents in accordance with law, this writ petition is
disposed of.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg