IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 8080 of 2011(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SUGUNANANDAN,AGED 55 YEARS,S/O.R.MATHU, PATTATHIL, NJEKKAD, VADASSERIKONAM P.O, VARKKALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. VARKKALA MUNICIPALITY, VARKKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.PIN-695 505 2. THE SECRETARY,VARKKALA MUNICIPALITY, VARKKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.PIN-695 505 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.8080/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE DATED 15/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 24/3/2010 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY. P3 COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 27/3/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P4 COPY OF THE REVISED ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROTECTION WALL OF THE SOLID WASTE TREATMENT PLANT. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/5/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/6/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4/10/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18/1/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. No. 8080 of 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner had executed certain works for the respondent- Municipality. After execution of the works petitioner has submitted part- pills. The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the delay in disbursing the amount covered by the said bills. Earlier, the petitioner has submitted Exts.P5 to P8 representations requesting the respondents to effect payments in respect of the works executed by the petitioner viz. construction of a protection wall. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent in this writ petition. It is stated in the said affidavit as hereunder: “It is submitted that the petitioner herein had submitted part bill dated 12.8.2010 and the cost of the said work was measured for Rs.9,00,376/-. The petitioner herein demanded payment of part bill or relieve him from the said construction and after the submission of part bill abandoned the work. As per resolution No.16 dated 09.3.2011, the Municipal Council resolved to stop the work at the present stage due to financial difficulties and -2- W.P.(C)8080/2011 decided to disburse the part bill to the petitioner from the availability of plant fund and further decided to execute the remaining work in the next year 2011- 2012”. 3. According to the respondents, the cost of the said work is Rs.9,00,376/- and as per resolution No.16 dated 09.3.2011 the Municipal Council decided to disburse the part bill. However, the contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled to get more than Rs.Ten lakhs in connection with the said work. Be that as it may, it is evident that already the Municipal Council has taken a decision to disburse the admitted amount. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to disburse the admitted amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner has any further grievance in the matter, it will be open to the petitioner to resort to appropriate remedies before the appropriate forum. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE rka