IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 32147 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.A.ABOOBACKER, THOTTUNGALPEDIKAYIL HOUSE, WADAKKENCHERRY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, TRIVANDRUM. 2. BLOCK PANCHAYATH WADAKKANCHERRY, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF THALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, WADAKKENCHERRY, THRISSUR. 4. MANAGING DIRECTOR, ICICI, KINFRA, TC 2/3598, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).32147/2009 ....................... Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The prayer sought in the writ petition is to direct the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.6,85,488/- and Rs.4,38,817/- to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is a contractor who had entered into an agreement with respondents 2 to 4 for the construction of a Hospital building and out patient block in the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Vadakkanchery. Ext.P2 is the copy of the agreement. It is stated that the petitioner executed the substantial portion of the work and was paid Rs.19,68,088/-. According to the petitioner in Ext.P4, ICICI, Kinfra, which was the nodel agency for the work in question, have expressed their willingness to pay the amount claimed including for the additional quantity of work executed by him. However, payment was not made and therefore this writ petition is filed. 2. A statement has been filed by the 3rd respondent. 3rd respondent admits that the petitioner had entered into an agreement for the construction of a Hospital building and an Out Patient Block under the MGP - EPCM Scheme. It is stated that W.P.(C).32147/09 2 according to the progress of the work, petitioner was paid a total amount of Rs.19,68,088/-. It is further stated that the work was very slow and written instructions were given both to the nodal agency and the petitioner requiring them to complete the work, vide letters dated 9.1.2007, 12.2.2007 and 22.2.2008. It is stated that the funds lapsed in March 2007 and that the additional work estimate was received from the nodal agency only on 21.3.2008 when the 3rd bill was submitted by the petitioner. It is stated that the revised estimate and the balance amount claimed by the petitioner for Rs.8.2 Lakhs were forwarded to the DMO on 29.3.2008 and the payment of the 3rd bill was not made to the petitioner for non completion of the work awarded to him and also due to the fact that the funds granted had lapsed. It is further stated that since the fund has already lapsed, only the Government is the authority to take a decision in the matter. 3. Therefore, although the respondents admit of having entrusted the work to the petitioner, the facts show that the petitioner did not complete the work. In the meantime, funds also got lapsed. On account of the fact that the work is remaining incomplete, at this stage, the petitioner cannot seek a direction W.P.(C).32147/09 3 from this Court to direct the respondents to pay the amount claimed by him. However, since the respondents do not have a case that the contract awarded to the petitioner has been cancelled, I feel it is still open to the petitioner to complete the work and thereafter, demand payment of the balance amount, in which event, it is upto the respondents to take up the matter with the Government and get necessary funds allotted to satisfy the petitioner's claim for the balance amount due to him. 4. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition making it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to complete the work awarded to the petitioner in Ext.P2 agreement, and as revised thereafter. Once the work is completed, it will be open to the petitioner to approach respondents 2 to 4 in which event necessarily they will complete the formalities for finalizing the bill and obtain orders from the Government and get funds allotted and settle the claim of the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs