IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 W.A.No.362 of 2008 -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).25277/2007 DATED 27/09/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:- ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IDAMALAYAR IRRIGATION PROJECT, PROJECT CIRCLE PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IDAMALAYAR IRRIGATION PROJECT, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:- ----------------------------------------------- 1. SUBASH.P.R., S/O.RAMAN, PARAMBIKATTIL HOUSE, VIJAYARAGHVAPUAM P.O., PERAMBRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. K.I.CHANDRAN, S/O. IKKORAN, KAYYUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOODAPUZHA DESOM CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. W.A.NO.362 OF 2008 - 2 - 3. JESTIN, S/O,.VARGHESE, VELIYATH HOUSE POTTA.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. JOY.K.P., S/O.POULOSE, KOMPARAKARAN HOUSE ELINJIPARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. --------------------------------------------- W.A.No.362 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.25277 of 2007 dated 27-09-2007. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, has followed the observations made by a Division Bench of this court to grant the reliefs sought for by the petitioners. 2. Petitioners are contractors. They have executed certain works entrusted to them by the State Government. The State Government has disbursed only 50% of the amounts, which the contractors were entitled to in view of the contract that was awarded to them. The balance amount is held back by the State Government only on the ground that certain vigilance inquiry is pending against the contractor. 3. The Contractor, may be borrowing huge funds from the financial institutions, has completed the work entrusted to him by the State Government. He is expected to get the amounts that is due to him from the State Government. In the name of holding of a vigilance inquiry, if the State Government holds back the amount that is due to a contractor for decades, we think that the contractor has every right to come before this court for appropriate reliefs. W.A.No.362 of 2008 - 2 - 4. In our earlier judgment, we had only directed the State Government to accept the bank guarantee that may be furnished by the contractor for payment of the balance amount and we had also directed that the State Government to complete the vigilance inquiry said to be pending against the petitioner/contractor therein as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two years from the date of the order. We had also directed the contractor to furnish bank guarantee for the amount that would be paid to him by the State Government in the event in the vigilance enquiry if it is held that the State Government has suffered any pecuniary loss because of inferior quality of the work that might have been done by the contractor.. 5. As we have already indicated, a contractor goes before the State Government with a faith, that if he completes the contract that is awarded to him, he will get the amounts due to him. In the name of holding of vigilance inquiry, the State Government is not expected to hold back the amounts due to the contractor. If the State Government wants to have an inquiry, the same requires to be completed within a reasonable time, and the contractor has to know whether he is entitled to get the balance amount that is payable to him. 6. Since that has not been done, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge, keeping in view what has been done by us in the previous W.A.No.362 of 2008 - 3 - writ appeal, has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the contractors. We do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer Judge vku/-