IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 23147 of 2008(E) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- Y.SLEEBACHAN,S/O. YOHANNAN ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR CHARUVILA VEEDU, CHENGAMANADU PO, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM - 691 557 BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PROJECTS NO.1 IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER SHIRUVANI PROJECT CIRCLE, PALAKKAD 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.K.I.P. DIVISION, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 23147 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered A Class contractor was awarded the work in the Kuriarkutty Karappara Irrigation Project. The contract period originally stipulated as 12 months was later extended. According to the petitioner, he had signed the agreement only under protest. He contends that he had carried out varied items of work and the authorities had approved the bill also. The petitioner sought for payment as per revised estimate. The revised estimate was submitted before the Superintending Engineer in April, 2004 itself. The writ petition was filed praying for the following reliefs:- “Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof calling for the records relating to Ext.P12 and quash the same. Direct the first respondent to finalise the accounts in accordance with the measurements recorded in the Measurement Book inclusive of all varied, extra and WPC.23147 /2008 2 additional works and taking into account Ext.P6 after hearing the petitioner and make the final payment to the petitioner within a time frame.” 2. Ext.P12 referred to therein is a communication by the Executive Engineer requiring the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.16,92,511/- stating the same as excess payment made by the petitioner. In a statement filed by the 4th respondent the same has been reiterated. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. The request for finalisation of the revised estimate is pending consideration. 3. Learned Government Pleader submits that even if it is sanctioned, no further amount is due to the petitioner. It might have an impact on the claim made against the petitioner for refund of the alleged excess payment. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to finalise the account of the petitioner arising from the work above mentioned within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It would be appropriate that the petitioner files a representation WPC.23147 /2008 3 pointing out the same within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is open to the first respondent to require any subordinate authority to submit a report after conducting further enquiry. V. GIRI, JUDGE. Pmn/