IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 10532 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PETER.A.P, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. PATHROSE, ATHIKALAZHI HOUSE, KADAYIRAPPU.P.O. KOLENCHERI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682311. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.JOY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DIVISION ENGINEER, BSNL, OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELECOM, PERAMBRA-673525. 2. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL, ANNIE HALL ROAD, CALICUT-673002. ADV. SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY, SC, BSNL FOR R1,2 SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP, SC, BSNL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.10532/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 31.7.04. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF PROVISIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER FOR CABLE CONSTRUCTION WORKS DATED 28.6.2004. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT DT 12.7.04. EXT.P4: TRU COPY OF THE RATES RECOMMENDED BY THE TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT SEEKING DISBURSAL OF THE AMOUNT DT 29.10.2010. EXTS OF R1. EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CP-1080/2003-04 DATED 17.12.2007 ADDRESSED BY AGM(CP) IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CP-1080/2003-04 DATED 21.12.2007 ADDRESSED BY AGM(CP) IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CP-1080/2003-04 08/ DATED 17.07.2008 ADDRESSED BY DGM (Plg) IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CP-1080/2003-04/140 DATED 28.1.2008 ADDRESSED BY DGM(Plg) IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1(e): TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL (COMMERCIAL) CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT OF THE BID DOCUMENTS OF TENDER NO.CP/1080/03-04 DT 25.3.2004 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10532 OF 2011 (N) ===================== Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Non payment of the bills issued to the petitioner for the works executed by him is what is complained of in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, he has executed the work, submitted the final bill and though almost 90% of the amounts have been paid, bills are not finally settled. 2. On the other hand, referring to Ext.R1(a) and other communications, learned standing counsel for the respondent submits that the final bill has not been submitted and that several materials are not returned by the petitioner. If any materials entrusted for execution of works are to be returned by the petitioner for claiming final settlement of his bills, of course the respondents are entitled to insist on such compliance and this Court will not be justified in holding otherwise. 3. In so far as the final bill which is to be submitted by the petitioner is concerned, counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already submitted the final bill and that no final bills are to be submitted. Further, even in Ext.R1(a), after calling upon the WPC No. 10532/11 :2 : petitioner to submit the final bill, respondents have proceeded to state that even if the petitioner does not submit the final bill, the last bill submitted by him will be treated as the final bill and on that basis, the account will be settled. 4. Since the petitioner submits that he has no further bill to submit and in view of the statement in Ext.R1(a) as noticed above, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the last bill submitted by the petitioner will be treated as his final bill and on that basis the claims will be settled, provided the petitioner complies with all other contract conditions for settlement of the dues. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 months of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp