IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 314 of 2008(K) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MOHAMMED AYOOB, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. V.P.MOHAMMED @ CHERIYAPPU HAJI, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, EDAVANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN ABRAHAM M. GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS AND BUILDINGS, NEAR MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, P.W.D. NORTH CIRCLE,KOZHIKODE 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, MANJERI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 314/2008-K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF ORIGINAL AND REVERSED ESTIMATE WITH EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENCE IS QUANTITIES APPROVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER ALONG WITH HIS COVERING LETTER DATED 05/01/2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CHEQUE DATED 13/09/2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER THROUGH SBT, MANJERI. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F.R-5.7485/08 DATED 14/10/08 RECEIVED FROM THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS & BRIDGES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 314 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Government Contractor who executed a work of BT renewal from Km 2/00 to 4/00 of Edakara pursuant to the sanction given by the Chief Engineer, Roads and Bridges. Technical sanction was given by the Technical Engineer on 22.9.2004 for an amount of Rs.8 lakhs and work was tendered and awarded to the petitioner at 26.90% below estimate. It seems that the work was completed within the agreed time of three months. But during the execution, certain deviations were found necessary and a revised estimate was submitted by the Executive Engineer for an amount of Rs.12,32,711/-. The Superintending Engineer has approved the revised estimate for Rs.9,99,809/-. The work was completed but the amount due to the petitioner in its entirety was not paid, though a portion of the same was paid. Hence this writ petition. A statement was filed by respondents 2 to 4 and later pursuant to the direction issued by this court an additional affidavit has been filed by the WPC. 314/2008 2 Section Officer of the PWD. 2. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner that the work was completed as per the agreement is not a matter in dispute. Further a revised estimate came to be drawn up in the course of execution of the work on account of certain deviations which were found to be necessary and this was also done by the contractor. Originally the estimate was sanctioned for an amount of Rs.8 lakhs and though the revised estimate put up by the Executive Engineer was for an amount of Rs.12,32,711/-, the Superintending Engineer approved the same for an amount of Rs.9,99,809/-. I do not find any dispute having been raised by the respondents as regards the completion of the work. A dispute has been raised on the premise that the Accountant General had objected the sanctioning of the revised estimate as being beyond the powers of the Superintending Engineer. It is further contended that a supplementary agreement had to be executed on the revised estimate and this required a completion report to be submitted to the higher authorities and sanction to be accorded by the Government itself. This has not been done. 3. It is difficult to countenance the stand that final orders of WPC. 314/2008 3 sanction are yet to be issued by the Government, in respect of a work which was admittedly completed on 6.4.2005. I would have upheld the objection of the respondents for non payment of the balance amount due to the petitioner, had there been any indication that the work was not completed to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. There is no such objection in the present case. What is involved is an objection by the Accountant General. That is a matter which may be dealt with by the Government. But in the aforementioned circumstances, I do not find any justification for non payment of the balance amount due to the petitioner. I also take note of the fact that the petitioner is a licensed contractor. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to take steps to see that the balance amount due to the petitioner in relation to the work BT renewal from Km. 2/00 to 4/00 of the Edakara Marutha road be disbursed to him without further delay, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If ultimately the Government comes to the conclusion that the works have not been completed satisfactorily, then it is open to WPC. 314/2008 4 the Government to take appropriate steps in that regard after issuing notice to the petitioner. The judgment will not stand in the way of the Government taking appropriate steps, departmentally, against any Engineer who might be found to have given an approval for the revised estimate in excess of his financial powers without appropriate orders of sanction from the Government. V. GIRI, JUDGE. Pmn/ WPC. 314/2008 5