IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 327 of 2008()
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
... Petitioner
2. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
Vs
1. K.R.ANILKUMAR, GOVT.CONTRACTOR
... Respondent
2. M.SAJU, GOVT.CONTRACTOR
3. K.T.GEORGE, GOVT.CONTRACTOR,
4. V.L.VARGHESE, GOVT.CONTRACTOR
5. P.O.POULOSE, GOVT.CONTRACTOR
6. K.D.JOSE, GOVT. CONTRACTOR
7. M.V.PAULOSE, GOVT.CONTRACTOR
8. V.L.VARGHESE, GOVT.CONTRACTOR
9. T.K.JOY, GOVT. CONTRACTOR
10. K.P.JOSEPH, GOVT.CONTRACTOR
11. M.V.KURIAKKU, GOVT.CONTRACTOR
For Petitioner :SRI.N.MANOJKUMAR(SPL.GOVT.PLEADER)FINANC
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :04/02/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.327 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 4th day of February, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
The petitioners are Government Contractors. Aggrieved by
the non-payment of balance amount sanctioned in Exts.P1 and P1(a) letter
of credit for the reason that a Vigilance Enquiry is pending, they approached
this Court with a prayer to direct the first respondent to release the amount
due after accepting necessary bank guarantee.
(2). The learned Single Judge, after notice to the respondents
and after following the directions issued in identical cases in W.A.No.701/07,
has directed the respondents to release the amunt due to the petitoiners on
the petitioners furnishing sufficient bank guarantee.
(3). The learned Judge has followed the Ruling of the Division
Bench of this Court. It is expected of the learned Judge to follow what is laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in order to maintain uniformity and
also the dignity of this institution. The learned Judge has followed what has
been said by the Division Bench. We cannot say that the learned Judge was
not justified in following the directions issued in more or less similar cases by
the Division Bench. Therefore, we do not find any error committed by the
learned Judge in passing the impugned order which would call for our
interference. Accordingly, the appeal requires to be rejected and it is
W.A.No.327/2008 -2-
rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE
MS