IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14850 of 2010(E)
1. M/S.GOODWILL POWER COMPANY PRIVATE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, HEAD OFFICE
3. THE MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD.,
For Petitioner :SMT.M.UMA DEVI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :19/05/2010
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No.14850 of 2010
==================
Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner undertook some work on behalf of the Kerala
Water Authority, viz., supply and installation of TOD meters. As
security for due performance of the work, the petitioner furnished
security deposits which were to be in force for a specified period.
Those periods are over. The petitioner now wants the security deposits
back. The respondents seek to forfeit the amount to the Government
account on the ground that the petitioner did not claim the amount
within a reasonable time. The petitioner approached the Civil Court by
filing O.S.No.1135/2008 before the Principal Munsiff’s Court,
Ernakulam, who, by Ext.P8 judgment, after finding entitlement of the
petitioner, refused to direct release of the amount on technical
grounds. Apparently emboldened by that judgment, the respondents
have initiated further proceedings to forfeit the amount, which has
resulted in Ext.P9 communication from the 3rd respondent-bank to the
petitioner. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has
approached this Court seeking the following direction:
“i) issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, calling for the records relating to Exts.P-5 and P-6 and
quash the demand of the 2nd Respondent made in Ext.P-5 and P-6.”
2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for respondent 1
w.p.c.14850/10 2
and 2 also.
3. Respondents 1 and 2 are public authorities. They cannot
deny amounts due to a contractor who has executed work to their
satisfaction on the ground that there was delay in claiming the security
deposit. I do not think that it looks good on respondents 1 and 2 to
deny money admittedly due to the petitioner on technical grounds.
Accordingly, I am of opinion that respondents 1 and 2 should refund
the security deposit to the petitioner. Accordingly, there would be a
direction to respondents 1 and 2 to refund the security deposits due to
the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge