IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 28237 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.V.ABRAHAM, CLASS A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR,CHERUTHOTTIL HOUSE, THAMMANIMATTOM, RAMAMANGALAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, O/O.DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LSGD DIVISION, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD SECTION, KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALADY. ADV. SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU FOR R1 G.P. SHRI.MUHAMMED ANZAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 28237 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Government contractor. On behalf of the 1st respondent Panchayat he executed certain work. Bill has been presented for payment in respect of the work. However, from the bill amount 10 per cent has been deducted allegedly towards beneficiary contributions. The bill amount is Rs.14,29,325/- out of which the amount paid is only Rs.12,86,393/-. The petitioner's grievance is that the balance amount is not being paid to the petitioner. 2. The contention of the respondents is that as per Exts.R1-A and R1-B, which are the guidelines issued by the Government and the relevant portion of the agreement executed by the petitioner, the 1st respondent is entitled to deduct beneficiary contributions from the bill amount payable to the petitioner. According to them, the petitioner has to recover 10 per cent amount from the beneficiaries who are liable to pay the amount. w.p.c.28237/08 2 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Identical question has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P6 judgment, wherein this Court held thus: “5. The contract in question is between the 1st respondent and the appellant. The beneficiaries are not parties nor signatories to the contract. It may be true that 80 per cent of the bill amount has to be paid by the respondent Grama Panchayath and only 20 per cent of the project cost has to be paid by the beneficiaries but it has to be collected and made over to the contractor by the Panchayat which alone is the contracting party. In view of the above discussion we allow the appeal. Consequently the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and direction is issued to the 1st respondent Panchayath to make over the remaining admitted amount to the appellant within six weeks from today.” The ratio of the above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case also. Here also the contract is between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. The beneficiaries are not parties to the contract. Admittedly contract has been satisfactorily completed. The petitioner has no privity of contract with the beneficiaries and therefore, he cannot seek to recover the amount from the beneficiaries. Therefore, it is for the 1st respondent to pay the bill amount to the petitioner at the first instance and recover the same from the beneficiaries, if they can legally. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the 1st respondent is directed to pay the withheld amount also to the petitioner w.p.c.28237/08 3 within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. However, I make it clear that it would be open to the respondents to recover the said amount from the beneficiaries in accordance with law, if they are entitled to do so. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge