IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34240 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.M.ANEER, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.P.P.MOHAMMED BASHEER, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTHOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689107. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SMT.V.SARITHA SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD SMT.SUMEY CHANDRAN SRI.V.S.PREJITH SMT.KHADEEJA RISHBATH KALLINGAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, 3RD FLOOR, REVENUE COMPLEX, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPOUND THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 3. THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY, THIRUVALLA, REP. BY THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, THIRUVALLA, PIN-689101. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT. K.R DEEPA SC FOR R3 SRI. SUBASH CHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34240 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein had undertaken the construction of a shopping complex for women near the Municipal Stadium at Thiruvalla by the third respondent Municipality. After the work was carried out, the petitioner submitted his final bill. Later, a dispute arose as to the quality of work done by the petitioner. It appears without notice to him, the Chief Engineer of the Local Self Government Department conducted an inspection and submitted a report based on which the Secretary of Thiruvalla Municipality issued Ext.P2 dated 13.9.2010 calling upon the petitioner to remit the sum of Rs.1,40,153/- which was estimated to be the loss suffered by the Municipality in connection with the construction of the shopping complex. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P2 and seeks a direction to the respondents to forthwith pay the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- which represents the bill amount, together with interest thereon. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that before Ext.P2 letter was issued, he was not put on notice or heard and that WPC No.34240/2010 2 notwithstanding repeated requests, payment for the work done by him has not been made. It is evident from the materials produced by the petitioner himself that a dispute has arisen as regards the quality of the work done by him. The Municipality has also called upon the petitioner to make good the loss sustained by it. In such circumstances, as the petitioner's claim for payment for the work done by him is now in dispute, I am of the opinion that he should move the competent civil court seeking redressal of his grievances. The civil court can consider the question whether the demand made by the Municipality in Ext.P2 is sustainable in law. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed leaving open the petitioner's contentions and reserving liberty with him to move the competent civil court seeking redressal of his grievances. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.34240/2010 3 WPC No.34240/2010 4