IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 361 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20170/2007 Dated 18/07/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, EDAMALAYAR IRRIGATION PROJECT, PROJECT CIRCLE, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, EDAMALAYAR IRRIGATION PROJECT, CHALAKUDY,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------ 1. P.K.DAVIS, S/O.KUNJUVAREED, PUNNELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARIYARAM P.O., PARIYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. T.K.MOHANAN, S/O.KUMARAN, THAYYIL HOUSE KONNAKUZHY P.O., CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. P.B.NITHYANANTHAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, POIKADATH HOUSE, CHENGALOOR P.O., CHENGALOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. V.P.BAIJU, S/O.POULOSE, VELIYATH HOUSE, POTTA P.O., CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. K.O.VAREED, S/O.OUSEPH, KAITHARATRH HOUSE, KANNAKUZHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. M.D.KURIAN, S/O.DEVASSY, MOOLAN HOUSE, MOOKKANNUR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. K.K.SHAIJU, S/O.KUNJUVAREED, KARIPAPI HOUSE, THOOMAKODE DESOM, MOTHIRAKANNY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 8. M.V.SIVARAMAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, MEKATTUKATTIL HOUSE, KARUMARTHRA P.O., IRINJALAKUDA. 9. K.J.JOHNSON, KOLENCHERY HOUSE, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No.361 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ, This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.20170 of 2007 dated 18th July, 2007. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, has followed the observations made by a Division Bench of this court to grant the reliefs sought for by the petitioners. 2. Petitioners are contractors. They have executed certain works entrusted to them by the State Government.The State Government has disbursed only 50% of the amounts, which the contractors were entitled to in view of the contract that was awarded to them. The balance amount is held back by the State Government only on the ground that certain vigilance inquiry is pending against the contractor. 3. The Contractor, may be borrowing huge funds from the financial institutions, has completed the work entrusted to him by the State Government. He is expected to get the amounts that is due to him from the State Government. In the name of holding of a vigilance inquiry, if the State Government holds hack the amount that is due to a contractor for decades, we think that the contractor has every right to come before this court for appropriate reliefs. 4. In our earlier judgment, we had only directed the State Government to accept the bank guarantee that may be furnished by the contractor for payment of the balance amount and we had also directed that the State Government to complete the vigilance inquiry said to be pending against the petitioner/contractor therein as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two years from the date of the order. We W.A.361/2008. 2 had also directed the contractor to furnish bank guarantee for the amount that would be paid to him by the State Government in the event in the vigilance enquiry if it is held that the State Government has suffered any pecuniary loss because of inferior quality of the work that might have been done by the contractor.. 5. As we have already indicated, a contractor goes before the State Government with a faith, that if he completes the contract that is awarded to him, he will get the amounts due to him. In the name of holding of vigilance inquiry, the State Government is not expected to hold back the amounts due to the contractor. If the State Government wants to have an inquiry, the same requires to be completed within a reasonable time, and the contractor has to know whether he is entitled to get the balance amount that is payable to him. 6. Since that has not been done, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge, keeping in view what has been done by us in the previous writ appeal, has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the contractors. We do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb/DK.