IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 16518 of 2010(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- P.MANOHARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.V.BALAN, VELLALATHU HOUSE, P.O.PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, VADAKKEKADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ELECTRICAL SECTION, THRISSUR. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D. BUILDINGS AND LOCAL WORKS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL R2 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K. RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 16518/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 26/08/2006 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/07/2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13/07/2006. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09/05/2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/07/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 16518 Of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT Petition is filed seeking a direction commanding the respondents to pay the balance amount due to the petitioner with respect to the work done as per Ext.P1 agreement within such time along with interest upon the delayed payment as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court and for other incidental reliefs. 2. The petitioner is a contractor. He undertook the electrification work of 18 Anganwadis in Vadakkekkadu Grama Panchayath in the year 2006. The fourth respondent issued administrative sanction for the electrification work of 18 Anganvadis in the Grama Panchayath for Rs.2,33,347/-. The estimate of the above work was based on 1996 schedule rate. When the work was tendered there was no response from W.P.(C).No. 16518 Of 2010 2 contractors in two tender calls. The third negotiation quotation was invited and the petitioner quoted 35% excess estimate. The quotation was submitted to the third respondent Chief Engineer and the Chief Engineer awarded the work at 35% above the estimate. In Ext.P4 communication issued by the second respondent Executive Engineer to the District Collector, it is informed that the bill for the work was passed for Rs.2,33,247/- and is submitted for payment after effecting the statutory recoveries. 3. Ext.P1 is the agreement dated 26.8.06 executed between the petitioner and the second respondent. There was slight delay in the completion of the work for which he was fined an amount of Rs.9,231/-. The second respondent issued Ext.P4 letter to the fourth respondent District Collector along with the bill for the work for effecting the payment after deducting the statutory W.P.(C).No. 16518 Of 2010 3 recoveries. Ext.P4 is dated 17.12.2007. The fourth respondent District Collector released an amount of Rs.1,81,832/- without allowing the tender excess of Rs.63,740/-, stating that the tender excess cannot be allowed under the MLA Fund Norms. The balance amount payable is Rs.63,740/-. The District Collector also issued directions to the Panchayath to arrange for the Excess fund from the Panchayath fund or beneficiary contribution of donation from well-wishers. Ext.P5 communication was issued by the District Collector directing the Panchayath to pay the balance amount to the contractor, from any of the fund stated in Ext.P5 letter and to intimate the same to the office of the District Collector at the earliest. Ext.P6 is the letter issued by the second respondent Executive Engineer to the Panchayath directing the Panchayath to make payment of 35 % of the tender excess. W.P.(C).No. 16518 Of 2010 4 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of Exts.P4, P5 and P6 the respondents have not made any arrangements for paying the balance amount due to the petitioner. The first respondent has not responded to Exts.P5 and P6 letters. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent Panchayath, it is interalia stated that on receipt of Ext.P5 communication from the District Collector the same was placed before the Panchayath committee, and that the Panchayath committee, as per resolution No.7(3) dated 30.07.2008 expressed its inability to arrange the funds. The stand of the Panchayath is that the Panchayath has no funds to arrange for the tender excess and is also unable to effect any payment as such, since it is not the project of the Panchayath. It is further stated that Panchayath is unable to raise funds through donations since no willing W.P.(C).No. 16518 Of 2010 5 persons have come forward to donate the amount and since the tender excess seems to have been approved by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Electrical Section, Thrissur and Chief Engineer, PWD Building and Local Works, Trivandrum, the funds have to come from them and not from the Panchayath. 6. So long as the petitioner is concerned, he had executed the work and it is not disputed that an amount of Rs.63,740/- is due to the petitioner. The work was completed long back. Ext.P5 communication issued by District Collector to the Panchayath Secretary dated 9.5.2008 and Ext.P6 communication issued by Executive Engineer to the Panchayath Secretary also show that the payment is pending consideration and the authorities have not taken any effective steps to pay the amounts due to the petitioner. The District Collector maintained the stand that the amount is payable by the Panchayath W.P.(C).No. 16518 Of 2010 6 from other sources. The Panchayath also failed to effect payment stating that the Pachayath has no fund to arrange for the tender excess, therefore, unable to effect any payment as such. The Panchayath also took the stand that the Panchayath is unable to raise the funds through donations since no willing persons have come forward to donate the amount. The quotation of the petitioner for 35% excess estimate is duly sanctioned by the second respondent and ratified by the third respondent. The delay in paying the tender excess cannot be justified under any circumstances. 7. In these circumstances, this Court direct respondents 2 to 4 to pay the balance amount due to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Since the work was completed before December 2007, there will be a further direction to the fourth respondent to pay interest on the W.P.(C).No. 16518 Of 2010 7 balance amount at the rate of 6% from 01.01.2008 till payment. The respondents 2 to 4 are at liberty to demand the amount paid from the Panchayath and the Panchayath is liable to repay the amount. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. mns/-