IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26836 of 2009(Y)
1. MOHAMMED RAFEE, AGED 40,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD(ROADS & BRIDGES),
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
5. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :15/12/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 26836 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 15thday of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner had executed four items of works awarded by the
fourth respondent. The works were completed in time and final bills were
submitted thereafter. It appears that while the works were in progress,
certain changes had to be made in the works leading to revision of the
estimates. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that though many
months have passed after final bills were submitted, till date, the amounts
due and payable have not been disbursed.
2. The fourth respondent has filed an affidavit dated 2.11.2009.
Para 6 thereof read as follows:
“The fact that 3rd respondent, Executive Engineer, Roads
Division, Kottayam wants more time to get clarification for
the Revised estimate amount sanctioned by Chief Engineer
vide Order NoCE/R&B/KTM/14345/04 dated 8.1.2009 is
known to the petitioner also. The petitioner is now
approaching the Hon’ble Court to get the payment
immediately without follow up in the Department. This
action by the petitioner is unfair. The 3rd respondent can
make payment on the petitioner’s bill after getting
clarification for the above revised estimate sanctioned, if
competent authority allows to make payment limiting to the
total amount including the tender excess. This respondent
prays 4 months time more to settle the case after getting
clarification from the competent authority.”
3. It is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the fourth
respondent that the only reason for the delay in paying the bills presented
by the petitioner is want of administrative sanction for the revised estimate
W.P.(C) No. 26836/09
2
from the Chief Engineer, the competent authority. The fourth respondent
has in the counter affidavit also prayed for four months’ time to settle the
petitioner’s bills. In the light of the admitted fact that the respondents do
not dispute the petitioner’s entitlement to receive payment for the works
done and the only impediment for not paying the bill amount is want of
administrative sanction for the revised estimate from the Chief Engineer. I
dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to
grant administrative/financial sanction for the revised estimate of the works
done by the petitioner within one month from today. The respondents shall
also take steps to disburse the bill amount to the petitioner within one
month thereafter. In other words within a period of two months from today,
the amounts payable to the petitioner for the four different items of work
executed by him shall be disbursed to him.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
vps