IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33887 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S) : ---------------------- 1. K.O.JOSE, CONTRACTOR, KELAKATH HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., PIN-683542. 2. N.V.SURENDRAN, S/O.KUNKAN NAIR, CHAVASSERY P.O., PIN-670792. BY ADVS. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.SEBASTIAN JOSEPH (KURISUMMOOTTIL) SRI.P.S.PRASAD RESPONDENT(S) : ------------------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-679 533. 2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.CIRCLE, KANNUR-670 012. BY ADV. SRI. M. DINESH, (S.C.) FOR KERALA WATER AUTHORITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: NS W.P.C. NO. 33887/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EHXIBITS : EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE CONTRACT WITH ALL ITS ANNEXURES. EXT. P2 : COPY OF THE TENDER DATED 7.09.2005 DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ON 09.11.2010. EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 7.02.2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P4 : COPY OF THE RESPECTIVE REPORTS, REGARDING THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK BY THE 2ND PETITIONER, IN THIS REGARD OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.1.2010. EXT. P5 : COPY OF THE INDFORMATION DATED 29.10.211 ISSUED BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER, K.W.A. DIVISION , KANNUR. RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE NS ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 33887 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Ext.P1 and P2 are the work orders issued to the petitioners for laying pipes in relation to a project CARWSS to Keezhur and Chavassery Village Reach-I and II. From Exts. P3 and P4 it is seen that the work has been completed by the petitioners in 2006 and 2009 respectively. However, for reasons which are not attributable to the petitioners, the project have not been commissioned so far and therefore, the security amount of ` 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each deposited by the petitioners at the time of execution of agreements have not been refunded. It is therefore, this writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to refund the security deposits. 2. From the submissions made by both sides it is clear that the delay in commissioning the project is not W.P.C. No. 33887 OF 2011 -2- attributable to the petitioners. As already seen the petitioners have completed their works in the years 2006 and 2009 respectively. Therefore, it is totally arbitrary on the part of respondents in not allowing releasing the security deposits on the ground of non-commissioning of the project which is something beyond the control of the petitioners. Since the inordinate delay has already been caused, I see no reason why the security deposit shall not be released to the petitioners. In that view, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent should refund the security deposit made by the petitioners pursuant to Ext.P1 and P2. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks on such production. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Kp/-