IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 26836 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHAMMED RAFEE, AGED 40, S/O.HASSAN KUTTY, VETTIKKATTU HOUSE, EARTH VADAKARA P.O., MANIMALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, PWD DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD(ROADS & BRIDGES), PUBLIC OFFICE, MUSEUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD(ROADS & BRIDGES) DIVISION, T.B.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD(RAODS & BRIDGES) SUB DIVISION, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD(RAODS & BRIDGES) SECTION, ERUMELI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 26836/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION GIVEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 20.11.2008 PA TO JUDGE TRUE COPY P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26836 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had executed four items of works awarded by the fourth respondent. The works were completed in time and final bills were submitted thereafter. It appears that while the works were in progress, certain changes had to be made in the works leading to revision of the estimates. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that though many months have passed after final bills were submitted, till date, the amounts due and payable have not been disbursed. 2. The fourth respondent has filed an affidavit dated 2.11.2009. Para 6 thereof read as follows: “The fact that 3rd respondent, Executive Engineer, Roads Division, Kottayam wants more time to get clarification for the Revised estimate amount sanctioned by Chief Engineer vide Order NoCE/R&B/KTM/14345/04 dated 8.1.2009 is known to the petitioner also. The petitioner is now approaching the Hon'ble Court to get the payment immediately without follow up in the Department. This action by the petitioner is unfair. The 3rd respondent can make payment on the petitioner's bill after getting clarification for the above revised estimate sanctioned, if competent authority allows to make payment limiting to the total amount including the tender excess. This respondent prays 4 months time more to settle the case after getting clarification from the competent authority.” 3. It is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent that the only reason for the delay in paying the bills presented by the petitioner is want of administrative sanction for the revised estimate W.P.(C) No. 26836/09 2 from the Chief Engineer, the competent authority. The fourth respondent has in the counter affidavit also prayed for four months' time to settle the petitioner’s bills. In the light of the admitted fact that the respondents do not dispute the petitioner’s entitlement to receive payment for the works done and the only impediment for not paying the bill amount is want of administrative sanction for the revised estimate from the Chief Engineer. I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to grant administrative/financial sanction for the revised estimate of the works done by the petitioner within one month from today. The respondents shall also take steps to disburse the bill amount to the petitioner within one month thereafter. In other words within a period of two months from today, the amounts payable to the petitioner for the four different items of work executed by him shall be disbursed to him. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps