IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13288 of 2007(F) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ----------------- 1. N.VIJAYAKUMAR,N.V.SADANAM, NARUVAMOODU P.O. 2. S.RAJEEV, PRIYA BHAVAN, MANIVILA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. R.VILSON, PUNARTHAM,PERUMANA VALIYARATHALA, URUTTAMABALAM P.O. 4. S.B.PRASANTH, VARIKKAPLAVILA VEEDU, NARUVAMOOD. 5. V.R.ANEESH, V.R.BHAVAN, NARUVAMOOD P.O. 6. P.CHANDRAN,MANJUSHA VILASAM, MARANCHAL KONAM, NARUVAMOODU P.O. 7. P.BHANU, MARANCHAL VILAKATHU VEEDU, NARUVAMOODU P.O. 8. K.S.SUCHANDAN, K.S.NIVAS, MOTTAMOODU,NARUVAMOODU P.O. 9. P.B.S.MANI, LAKSHMI NIVAS, PAROOR KUZHI, PALLICHAL P.O. 10. SREEKANTAN NAIR, SREENILAYAM, NARUVAMOODU P.O. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN W.P.(C) NO.13288/2007 RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETRIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE PROJECT OFFICER, DISRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, SREENIKETHAN,THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SECRETARY, DISITRICT PANCHAYAT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE PALLICHAL PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT OFFICE, PALLICHAL. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR BY ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN - R4 SMT.LIGEY ANTONY - R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.13288/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE IST PETITIONERT AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2(a) TO (i):- COPIES OF THE LETTER FROM THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.13288/2007 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners claim that they have entered into an agreement with the 4th respondent for the development of certain roads and executed those works. Towards the works so executed by them, according to the petitioners, amounts are due to them. They rely on Exts.P2 series of communication issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, addressed to the 4th respondent informing the total value of the work done by them and requesting for settlement of the bills. 2. However, even on the case as pleaded by the petitioners, it can be seen that the amount which is to be paid to the petitioners is to be shared between the Panchayat and the second respondent and that the Panchayat has paid its share. Therefore what remains 2 unpaid is the share that is due from the second respondent. Petitioners have not produced anything to indicate that they have moved the second respondent for getting the amount paid by them, and in the absence of such a demand made and a decision communicated by the second respondent to the petitioners, this court will not be justified in issuing any positive direction at this stage. 3. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing that it will be open to the petitioners to move the second respondent claiming the amount that is due from them. If a claim is raised as above, the 2nd respondent shall consider the claim raised by the petitioners and pass orders thereon. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the second respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 3