IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 7859 of 2007(I)
1. M.C.BABU RAJ,S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. THE NEDUVATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
3. THE NEDUVATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :23/10/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 7859 of 2007
----------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2007
JUDGMENT
The grievance of the petitioner, an educated unemployed youth
who was given contract for the execution of three constructions works
viz. Pulloor – Pullamala Road, Puthenpuravathukkal – Elippara Road
and Mini Stadium within the area of the 2nd respondent Panchayat, is
that despite the satisfactory completion of the work way back on
28.2.1997 and the issuance of Ext.P4 to P4 (b) completion certificate
by the Panchayat and the approval of the works by the first respondent
Technical Authoritiy, he is not getting payment.
2. It is conceded in the counter affidavit that an agreement was
executed by the petitioner with the Panchayat on 26.4.2003 for
carrying out the three works. It is contended that on the terms of that
agreement the petitioner was expected to complete the work in the
year 2003 – 04 itself. It is also contended that on a scrutiny of the
Panchayat records, no records are seen indicating that the Panchayat
had taken a decision for extending the work. It is also contended that
no records are seen which would show that the Panchayat wanted
WPC No. 7859/2007 2
the estimate be revised. It is however conceded that as requested by
the petitioner the Panchayat requested the Assistant Executive
Engineer ( first respondent) on 4.11.1999 for modifying the estimate if
necessary. The case projected by the petitioner on the basis of
Ext.P4, P4(a) and P4 (b) completion certificates Ext.P5, P5(a) and P5
(b) final bills recommended by the Technical Authority that in spite of
satisfactory completion of the work the Panchayat has not disbursed
payments is not seen specifically denied.
3. The dispute raised seems to be only regarding the delayed
execution of the work. Even if it is assumed that there was delay on
the part of the petitioner in executing the work, in as much as the
completion of the work is not seriously disputed and it is not
contended that the work executed was below the standards, I do not
find any justification for denying payment to the petitioner since the
citizens of the Panchayat have been benefited by the work actually
executed. A total amount of Rs.77,091/- has been recommended for
payment by the Technical Authority after making the statutory
deductions way back in 2002. Non payment of atleast that principal
amount certainly amounts to negation of the petitioner’s fundamental
rights. The petition writ will stand allowed to the following extent.
4. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to release a sum of
WPC No. 7859/2007 3
Rs.77,091/- to the petitioner within two months of receiving copy of
this judgment. If payment is not made within the stipulated time
amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from this date.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,
JUDGE.
Dpk