IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 2711 of 2009(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.ANILKUMAR, PWD CONTRACTOR, RAMA MANGALAM,ENGINEERING COLLEGE.P.0, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,GOVT.SECRETARIAT., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CULTURAL AFFAIRS(B)DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,PWD BUILDING AND LOCAL WORKS, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,PWD BUILDING AND LOCAL WORKS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,PWD BUILDING DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.A. ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.2711/2009 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO.MZ(E)3830/2000 DTD.23/03/2006 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 5/11/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS. P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 25/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE N.SANIL KUMAR, DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)NO.2711 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a PWD Contractor. He had completed the work of landscaping and beautification of the surroundings of Napier Museum as per Ext.P1. According to him, an amount of Rs.17,43,551/- is still due. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent. While asserting that the 5th respondent has not delayed payment of the contractor, it was asserted that there are certain findings of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau in relation to the alegations made against thepetitioner. Those are also being looked into. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit and referred to Ext.P3 wherein the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, affirmed that there is no vigilance enquiry pending against the petitioner in relation to the work in question. W.P.(C)NO.2711 of 2009 :: 2 :: 4. This court had directed the 7th respondent to file an affidavit tranversing the averments contained in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner with reference to Ext.P3. 5. An affidavit has been filed by the 7th respondent in this regard. It is stated therein that there is no vigilance enquiry pending against the petitioner for the work in question. It is further submitted that the delay in payment was on account of the delay on the part of the contractor in completing the work. 6. Now that the petitioner has completed the work and final bills have been passed, payment due to the petitioner shall be effected within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If sanction is required for payment for any additional work done by the petitioner, over and above the work scheduled in the original agreement, that shall be obtained and payment shall be effected, without further delay. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/- true copy P.S. To Judge.