IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 7500 of 2009(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ V.P.THRIMATHY, S/O.V.P.CHERIYAPPU HAJI, AGED 60 YEARS, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.A.ABDUL SAMAD SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 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 BRIDGES, P.W.D. NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS DIVISION, MANJERI. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A. ASIF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 7503 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7500 of 2009(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DC 5-2655/2003 DATED 17.7.2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AGREEMENT NO.SE(K) 55/2004-05 DATED 10.8.2004 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE GOVERNMENT. P3 : COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF ORIGINAL AND REVISED ESTIMATE WITH EXPLANATION FOR DIFFERENCE IS QUANTITIES APPROVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER ALONG WITH HIS COVERING LETTER WITH NO.DC 5/2655/2003 DATED 17.1.2005. P4 : COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 17.9.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER ALONG WITH HIS COVERING LETTER WITH NO.DC 5/2655/03. P5 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.9.2007 ISSUE THE 3RD RESPONDENT SANCTIONING RS.1,06,117/- TO THE PETITIONER FOR COMPLETING THE PROJECT AHEAD OF THE TIME. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L // TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. app/- V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). Nos. 7500 & 7503 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of August 2009. JUDGMENT Common facts and common issues are involved in these two writ petitions. Therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. I will refer to the facts in 7500/2009 in the first instance. Petitioner was awarded the work related to the Mankada- Pattikkad Road as evidenced by Ext.P1 and an agreement was executed as evidenced by Ext.P2. It seems that certain additional work were to be done. A revised estimate was drawn. The same was approved by the Superintending Engineer. The work was completed by the petitioner, but the amounts due to him were not been disbursed and hence the writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to pay the balance amount due to the petitioner for the work undertaken by him as per Ext.P2. 3. Petitioner refers to Ext.P4 completion certificate issued by the Superintending Engineer. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent. After referring to the agreement and other relevant details, it is W.P.(C). Nos. 7500 & 7503 OF 2009 2 stated as follows in para 4 of the counter affidavit. “ 4. The petitioner is so far paid Rs.90,85,810/- in two part bills on detailed scrutiny, the value of work done at estimate rate in the CC 3rd and final bill comes to Rs.1,79,61,473/- against the sanctioned amount of Rs.1,07,00,000/- resulting on excess of 67.86% and the work slip has been submitted to higher authority for getting approval. After getting approval of work slip which is submitted for an amount of Rs.1,79,61,473/- the balance amount due to the contractor is Rs.46,22,972/-. After deducting the cost of materials supplied by the department and other statutory recoveries, the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.20,08,317/-. The excess amount need approval of higher authority as per the objection of Accountant General's audit team. The payment can be made after getting approval of the work slip from higher authorities which is under process.” 5. Similar facts are involved in W.P.(C).No.7503/2009 as well. 6. I heard Mrs. M.A.Vaheeda Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Senior Government Pleader Mr. M.A.Asif. 7. An objection has been raised by the Accountant General, in the matter of payment of amount due to the contractor on the ground that in relation to the additional work, the revised W.P.(C). Nos. 7500 & 7503 OF 2009 3 estimate was not sanctioned by the Government, but only by the Superintending Engineer. A similar contention was considered by me in W.P.(C).No.314/2008. It was held that since the work has been completed to the satisfaction of the authority, and additional work was done by the petitioner as directed by the Superintending Engineer, the petitioner would be entitled to the payment due for the entire work. 8. I am of the view that similar circumstances exist in the present case as well. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent to pay the petitioners the amount due to them as stated in para 4 of the counter affidavit, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that if ultimately the Government comes to the conclusion that the works have not been completed satisfactorily, then it is open to the Government to take appropriate steps in that regard after issuing notice to the petitioner. It is also made clear that the judgment will not stand in the way of the Government taking appropriate steps, departmentally, against any Engineer who might be found to W.P.(C). Nos. 7500 & 7503 OF 2009 4 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 kkms/