IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3995 of 2009(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.S.SURESHKUMAR, S/O. SANKARU, AGED 45 YEARS, CONVENER, PERUVALLUR AMBEDKAR DRINKING WATER PROJECT OF MULLASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THYVALAPPIL HOUSE, PERUVALLUR PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT,. PIN 680 508. BY ADVS. MR.P.RAMACHANDRAN, MR.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- MULLASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP. BY SECRETARY, P.O.MULLASSERY , THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 509. BY ADVS. MR.K.B.MOHANDAS, MR.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.3995/2009 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 23/11/07. P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 11/01/2008 IN WPC.NO.1362/08. P3: COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.9 DTD. 1/12/2007 OF THE MULLASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 7/03/2008. P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 14/03/2008. P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 15/03/2008 BEARING NO.A2 988/06 FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).3995/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner was the convener of a Drinking Water Project who executed the work entrusted by the respondent Panchayat. He constructed a pump house and well. The work was over in 2002 and the Project was inaugurated on 12.1.2003. Out of the total amount of Rs.3,23,360/-, petitioner was paid only Rs.2,00,074/- leaving a balance of Rs.1,23,286/- unpaid. He represented the matter before the authorities. As there was no progress, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). 1362/2008. By Ext.P2 judgment, this Court directed the Panchayat to consider the representation filed by the petitioner. Panchayat accordingly considered the matter and Ext.P3 is the resolution passed. It is stated that the work was supervised by retired Engineers and therefore, after the Project was completed, the final bill was forwarded to the Block Level Technical Committee under the chairmanship of the Block Development Officer. They refused to scrutinize the bill and therefore, the bill W.P.(C).3995/09 2 was submitted to the Executive Engineer, Local Self Government Department. The Executive Engineer returned the bill as, according to him, it should be got scrutinized by the Engineers of the Water Authority. The bills were thereupon submitted to the Engineers of the Water Authority. They also returned the bill. Thus the bills were being shuttled from one office to the other and this is evident from Ext.P3. Again the petitioner represented the matter and finally was issued Ext.P6 informing that the Panchayat is taking earnest steps and payment will be made as expeditiously as possible. Ext.P6 communication was issued on 15.3.2008. Payment was not made so far and therefore this writ petition is filed. 2. The fact that the petitioner was awarded the work, he executed the work, the Project was inaugurated and the people are enjoying the Water supplied from the Project are not disputed by the Panchayat. All that the Panchayat says is that the bill is not scrutinized either by the Block Level Technical Committee or by the Water Authority or anybody else. W.P.(C).3995/09 3 3. If the work was to be supervised or measurements were to be taken by the Block Level Technical Committee , that ought to have been ensured by the Panchayat. If, for the fault of the Panchayat, such supervision did not take place, that can be no reason to deny payment that is due to the petitioner who undoubtedly has executed the Project. Therefore, the absence of supervision by the Block Level Technical Committee or their refusal to scrutinize the bill can be no answer to the claim of the petitioner for payment. In my view, the inordinate delay has already been caused for the payment due to the petitioner and there is no justifiable reason. 4. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the Panchayat shall get the bill scrutinized by the Block Level Technical Committee or by any other Committee which it considers appropriate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Payment that is due to the petitioner shall be made immediately thereafter. W.P.(C).3995/09 4 5. Admittedly, the work was being completed in the year 2002 and for no reasons that are attributable to the petitioner, payment was delayed by eight years. In my view, the petitioner should be suitably compensated. Therefore, I direct that the Panchayat to pay interest at the rate of 10% from 12.1.2003, the date on which the Project was inaugurated, till the date of payment. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs