IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 16754 of 2007(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ T.E.YOHANNAN, THYPARAMPIL HOUSE, KEEKOZHUR P.O., RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD., BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD., COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. KERALA STATE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMPAN(B/0) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.16754/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE REPLY BEARING NO CMMC-623/04/PTA DT. 14.11.04 ISSUED FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTORS' OFFICE. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 18.11.04. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 18.9.06. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT (UNDATED). /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 16754 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 11, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a contractor and he has filed this writ petition praying for directing the respondents to return the security deposit of Rs.1,22,403/- with interest at the rate of 18% from 10.4.1999. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that he had executed certain works for the respondents and that the work was satisfactory completed way back in 1999 itself and the site was also handed over to the respondents. As payment was not made, he approached this court by filing O.P.14069/2000 and that case was disposed of by judgment dated 10.8.2000 directing payment of the admitted amounts due to the petitioner. It is stated that accordingly though certain payments were made, the respondents did not release the security deposit that the petitioner made. As the representation made by him subsequently also did not evoke any positive response, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for compelling the respondents to release the security deposit made WP(C) 16754/07 Page numbers by him. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the claim raised by the petitioner is belated and that it is barred by limitation. I am not in a position to appreciate these contentions. As already noticed, there is already a judgment directing the respondents to release the payments of the admitted amounts. Even in this writ petition substantial dispute is not raised by the respondents regarding the amount payable. Therefore there is no merit in the technical plea now raised. 4. The third contention that is raised in the counter affidavit is that certain amounts are recoverable from the petitioner towards the cost of steel that was returned, cost of unreturned cement and cost of tools and plants not returned. What is noteworthy is that despite the lapse of more than eight years from the date of completion of the work, even at the stage when the counter affidavit has been filed, the respondents have not stated the actual amount due which they claim is recoverable from the petitioner. However, in Ext.P4, a communication issued by the respondents themselves, it WP(C) 16754/07 Page numbers is stated that cost of certain materials is liable to be recovered from the petitioner and that the assessed value of the materials to be accounted by the petitioner is less than Rs.5000/-. If that be so, the liability of the petitioner cannot exceed Rs.5000/- which the respondents themselves have quantified in Ext.P4. Taking into account the facts as stated above, I feel that the respondents should be called upon to pay the security deposit amount of Rs.1,22,403/- which figure has been admitted by the respondents in Ext.P4 after deducting Rs.5000/- being the liability of the petitioner. 4. Therefore I direct that the respondents shall pay Rs.1,17,403/- to the petitioner. This shall be released as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-