IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15814 of 2009(V)
1. T.P.ANEESH, S/O. KUNHUMUHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D.
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS AND
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :18/08/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.15814 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
2. The petitioner was entrusted with the work
viz., improvements to Thuvur Neelancheri Arimanal
Road from KM 00/0 to 400, pursuant to a notification
issued by respondents 3 and 4. The Probable Amount
of Contract for the work was Rs.67,74,747/-. The
petitioner quoted below the Probable Amount of
Contract. According to him, the quantity of the work
had to be revised and this was due to several factors.
Revised estimate of Rs.83,75,000/- was approved. The
petitioner contends that he has done the work for
Rs.94,60,462//-. He has received payments also. But,
he is yet to receive a sum of Rs.5,31,150/-. Hence this
writ petition.
W.P.(C)NO.15814 of 2009
:: 2 ::
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf
of the 4th respondent. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the same
read as follows:
“It is further submitted that as per the
conditions of contract, the petitioner is
bound to do the essential excess quantity of
work in addition to the original estimate,
subject to approval of the competent
authority according to the delegation of
powers issued by the Government.
Accordingly, the petitioner has executed
some additional works along with the
original work. For this the payment will be
made at the rate quoted by the petitioner
for the original work. In this work it is
35.11% below estimate rate. The work was
completed by the petitioner within the
stipulated period and the work was
measured by the concerned Assistant
Engineer and bill submitted in April, 2008
for a total value of Rs.94,50,462/-. The
argument that the value of the work was
revised from Rs.83.75 lakhs to 94.50 lakhs
is wrong. The original estimate was for
Rs.67,00,000/- and which was revised to
Rs.83,75,000/- after considering quoted
rate below 35.11%. The Exhibit P2
produced by the petitioner is not a
document issued by the department.
W.P.(C)NO.15814 of 2009
:: 3 ::
It is submitted that the department
has paid the bill of petitioner for a total
value of Rs.83,75,000/-. After deducting
the quoted rate of below 35.11% cost of
materials issued by the department and
other statutory recoveries, the petitioner
is entitled to get an amount of
Rs.38,45,338/-. The same had been paid
to the petitioner through cheque. If the
total value is considered as
Rs.94,50,462/- the petitioner will be
entitled to get proportionate increase in
payment. But that amount is temporarily
withheld on the basis of an objection
raised by the Accountant General during
their annual audit, for getting the approval
for the revised estimate from the
competent authority according to the
circular No.C6-60662/2002/G1 dated
16.11.2002 issued by the Chief Engineer.
Therefore, the payment of the balance
amount which is withheld will be paid on
getting sanction from the competent
authority, which is under processing. If
sanction is accorded, the petitioner
contractor will have to execute a
supplementary agreement to render him
eligible for payment as per agreement
condition.”
W.P.(C)NO.15814 of 2009
:: 4 ::
4. Though the respondents dispute that the
estimate was revised from Rs.83.15 lakhs to Rs.94.50
lakhs, they have no dispute that the total value of the
work is considered as Rs.94,60,462/-. Then the
petitioner will be entitled to proportionate increase in
the rate. What stands in the way is an audit objection
from the Accountant General’s office. If a revision in
the estimate of the work was bona fide required and
the work has been satisfactorily completed by the
petitioner, then he is entitled to payment for the work.
It would not be justified in holding back the payment on
account of the objection from the office of the
Accountant General alone.
5. The 1st respondent shall, therefore, take a
decision on the question as to whether a revision in the
estimate of the work was actually necessary and if it is
found to be necessary and the work has been
satisfactorily completed by the petitioner, the balance
amount due to him shall be disbursed within three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
W.P.(C)NO.15814 of 2009
:: 5 ::
judgment. Proceedings shall be passed by the 1st
respondent, in this regard, within the aforementioned
time frame.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/-
true copy
P.S. To Judge