IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17162 of 2009(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MOHAMMED AYOOB, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.V.P.MOHAMMED @ CHERIYAPPU HAJI, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, EDAVANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADVS.MR.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU MR.JAGAN GEORGE MR.K.A.NOUSHAD MR.P.G.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D.ROAD AND BRIDGES, NEAR MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROAD AND BRIDGES, P.W.D, NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS DIVISION, MANJERI. R1 R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.17162/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DC /5/2320/03 DTD. 21.8.04 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AGREEMENT NO.SE (K) 59/04-05 DTD. 1.9.04 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE GOVERNMENT. P3:- COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF ORIGINAL AND REVISED ESTIMATE WITH EXPLANATION FOR DIFFERENCE IS QUANTITIES APPROVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER ALONG WITH HIS COVERING LETTER WITH NO.DC 5/2320/03 DTD. 15.1.05. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 17162 of 2009-M - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is a contractor who was awarded with the work, viz. strengthening the existing B.T. surface by providing 55mm & AC 25 mm on Manjeri Byepass road 1st reach-KM 0/00 to 1/370 2nd reach 0/00 to 0/980 and 4th reach 0/00 to 1/800 in Malappuram District, issued by respondents 3 and 4. The probable amount of contract was Rs.76,32,610/- as per the tender notification. The work was awarded to the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P1 communication. Ext.P2 is the copy of the agreement executed by the petitioner. During the course of execution of the work, due to various reasons the quantity of the work had to be increased for proper and effective execution of the work. It is stated that a revised estimate was prepared by the department and it was approved by the third respondent Superintending Engineer. Ext.P3 is the true copy of the abstract of the original and revised estimates. The total cost of construction was accordingly fixed at Rs.85,50,512. The petitioner had completed the whole work including the excess work as per the revised estimate. 2. As per the final bill, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to wpc 17162/2008 2 get a sum of Rs.86,78,942/- after deducting the cost of materials supplied by the department, but he was paid only Rs.72,36,018/- as per two part bills. It is stated that from out of the balance amount of Rs.14,42,924/-, he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.13,52,077/- after deducting the statutory dues. Seeking for a direction to the respondents to disburse the amount, this writ has been filed. 3. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out that during the course of execution certain deviations were found for the proper and satisfactory completion of the work and hence a revised estimate was prepared and submitted which was sanctioned by the then Superintending Engineer for an amount of Rs.85,50,512/- , resulting in an excess of Rs.7,50,512/-. During the annual audit the Accountant General objected the procedure of sanctioning the revised estimate and further directed to obtain the approval of competent authority for making payment of such exceeded quantities of works. So far, an amount of Rs.72,36,018/- has been paid to the petitioner. 4. As per the averments in para 3 of the counter affidavit, for the quantities executed over and above the sanctioned revised estimates, a completion report is to be submitted to higher authorities explaining the reason for difference and sanction has to be accorded by the competent wpc 17162/2008 3 authority and in this case the by Government. If sanction is accorded, the petitioner will have to execute a supplementary agreement to render him eligible for payment as per the agreement condition. It is also stated that instruction has been issued to the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Sub Division, Manjeri to forward the completion report so that the Government can examine the necessity of the items. 5. Therefore, what remains is to accord sanction from the Government for the revised estimate, to which the petitioner is entitled as the work has been executed already. There will be a direction to the Government to take steps to see that appropriate sanction is accorded for enabling the department to release the balance amount to the petitioner in relation to the work. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The balance amount as sanctioned by the Government will be disbursed by the department without any further delay. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/