IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 27698 of 2008(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- T.P.JOSEPH, GOVT.CONTRACTOR, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, NADAKKAVU P.O., UDAYAMPEROOR-VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D ROADS SUB DIVISION, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 27698 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is a Government Contractor having valid A class registration is aggrieved that amounts due to him are not paid merely because of vigilance proceedings are stated to be pending in relation to certain contract works undertaken and executed by the petitioner. The petitioner had approached this court earlier in WPC.No.3912/2008 which was disposed of under Ext.P3 judgment. The operative portion reads as follows:- “ The facts of this case are identical to the facts of the case in W.A.No.701/2007 dealt with by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment. Hence, I am satisfied that the petitioner is also entitled to the similar relief. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing that depending upon the priority of the petitioner, if the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee for the amount that is due, the payment will be released to the petitioner. It is directed that the petitioner shall keep the bank guarantee alive until the vigilance enquiry is completed. The bank guarantee shall be furnished to the third respondent. 2. The petitioner submits that there are certain cases in which the Government might be prepared to disburse the admitted amount WPC.27698 /2008 2 even without the bank guarantee and this has been brought to the notice of the Government vide Ext.P7 notice. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that since the petitioner had approached this court earlier, it would not be proper for this court to issue any further direction in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction may be issued to the Government to deposit the amount found to be due to the petitioner in a joint account of the petitioner and the Government, so that the interest accrued from time to time would come to the benefit of the petitioner. This may be a reasonable suggestion. But I am of the view that since a direction has already been issued in Ext.P3 judgment in the matter of payment of the amount claimed by the petitioner, it is not open to this court to vary the said direction. It is up to the petitioner to seek variation of the direction issued in Ext.P3 if otherwise possible. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. V. GIRI, JUDGE. pmn/ WPC.27698 /2008 3