IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 340 of 2010(N) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.S.POULOSE, SON OF K.V.DEVASSY, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALLUMGAL (H), MATOOR.P.O, KALADY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS AND BRIDGES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD ROADS AND BRIDGES, NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROAD DIVISION, KASARAGOD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.K.RAMESH FOR R1-5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 340/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF AGREEMENT. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.31.5.O7. P3. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY R5. P4. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM R4 TO R3. P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 35779/2008. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 340 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a contractor, who had undertaken certain work in accordance with Ext.P2 work order. He executed the work of conveyance of bulk bitumen from Kochi Refinery to various work sites under the 5th respondent. In the course of execution of the work, as per the direction issued by the 5th respondent, the petitioner conveyed additional quantity of bitumen in addition to the quantities specified in the agreement on the assurance of the 5th respondent that he had already obtained revised estimate for conveyance of additional quantity sanctioned by the appropriate authority. But after getting the work executed, the 5th respondent has taken the stand that he is yet to get the revised estimate sanctioned and that payment for the work not included in the agreement can be made only after getting such sanction. The petitioner submits that the work had been completed as early as in June, 2008 and the petitioner has all along been waiting for payment for the work done by him. But he is yet to receive the amounts, is his grievance. He, therefore, seeks the following relief: “issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to disburse the amounts payable to the petitioner for the entire work executed pursuant o Exhibit P2 work order as included in the bill registered as Bill No.3/2008-09 dated 26.6.2008, within a time limit to be prescribed by this Honourable Court.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent, wherein the only contention taken is that the payment for the excess w.p.c.340/10 2 quantity of work can be made only after getting sanction of the revised estimate. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I had occasion to consider identical question in respect of another contractor who had undertaken identical work for the Government, in W.P.(C).No.35779/2008, in which, by Ext.P5 judgment I have held as follows: 'The petitioner, who is a Government contractor, was awarded the work of transporting bulk bitumen from the Cochin Refineries Ltd., to various work sites coming within the jurisdiction of the 4th respondent. In the course of execution of the work as per the direction issued by the 4th respondent, the petitioner undertook additional transporting work than what have been specified in the agreement and he was informed by the 4th respondent that he had already obtained sanction of revised estimate in that regard. But, after the work was executed by the petitioner, the 4th respondent took the stand that he is yet to get revised estimate sanctioned by the appropriate authorities and unless revised estimate is sanctioned, payment cannot be made to the petitioner. The work was completed as early as in the month of June, 2007 and the petitioner is yet to receive the money for the additional work done by him as directed by the 4th respondent. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief: “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to disburse the amounts payable to the petitioner for the entire work executed pursuant to Ext. P1 work order including the amount covered by the part bills registered as CC 47/07 dated 20-6-2007 and CC 49/07-08 dated 25-6-2007 within a time limit to be prescribed by this Honourable Court.” 2. On 20-8-2009, I passed the following interim order: “The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that after having asked him to transport bitumen in excess of the quantity for which a contract has been entered into, the remuneration for the excess work done is not being paid to the petitioner, on the ground that the revised estimate for the excess work has not been sanctioned. The fact that the petitioner has done additional work is not disputed before me. Only contention is that revised estimate for the additional work has not been sanctioned. I do not w.p.c.340/10 3 think that this is a ground for denying payment to the petitioner for the work done. If the revised estimate has to be sanctioned, it is for the respondents to get it appropriately sanctioned. They cannot deny payment to the petitioner on that ground alone. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader shall get instructions from the respondents as to within what time the respondents can pay the amounts due to the petitioner for the extra work admittedly done by him. Post on 27-8-2009. Failing which this Court will fix a period for such payment.” 3. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the Government would require at least one more month's time to consider the question of sanction of revised estimate itself. I am of opinion that whether the Government grants sanction for revised estimate or not, insofar as the petitioner had undertaken the additional work on the direction of the 4th respondent, the respondents are bound to pay for the work done by him. Therefore, I do not think that the respondents can ask the petitioner to wait indefinitely for payment for the work done. The sanction of additional estimate is an internal matter among the respondents, which cannot affect the right of the petitioner to get payment for the work admittedly done by him as directed by the 4th respondent, especially since there is no allegation of any malpractice against the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to see that the amounts due to the petitioner are paid as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within the outer limit of three months from today.' 5. Since the facts of both cases are on all fours, this writ petition requires to be allowed in terms of that judgment. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to see that the amounts due to the petitioner are paid as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within the outer limit of three months from day, irrespective of whether the Government sanctions the revised estimate or not. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.340/10 4