IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 4560 of 2007(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K. MATHAI, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.P.O.KURIAKOSE, PUTHUKUNNATHU HOUSE, AYOORPADAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TOURISM DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, (DISTRICT COLLECTOR) DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 4560/07. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT DTD.9.12.02. P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL. TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3. COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE BANK OF BARODA. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.15.7.04 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA, KOTHAMANGALAM BRANCH TO R3. P5. COPY OF THE FINAL BILL DTD.23.12.04. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.4560 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition complaining that the amounts due for the work executed by him at the instance of respondents 2 and 3 are not being paid to him. According to him, final bill after executing the work satisfactorily had been submitted on 23.12.2004, which has not been paid yet. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to pay the amount of Rs.4,84,069/- due to him under Exhibit P5 final bill and the retention amount of Rs.79,000/- already retained by him. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to pay 18% interest on Rs.5,63,069/- due to the petitioner from 1.1.2005 till the date of payment.” 2. The learned Government Pleader, on the basis of the statement filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, contends that the original estimate for the work was for Rs.11,40,000/- and the petitioner's tender for 8.1% below that amount was accepted. The Government had released Rs.10,26,000/-, out of which, Rs.5,00,000/- have been paid on 28.10.2003 and Rs.2,90,999/- on 5.2.2004 totalling Rs.7,90,999/- out of which, an amount of Rs.79,100/- has been retained as security. Further an amount of Rs.43,488/- was deducted as income tax and other statutory dues. It is submitted that an amount 2 of Rs.2,35,001/- was paid on 4.7.2008 after filing of the writ petition, and the total amount paid is Rs.9,46,900/-. It is further submitted that during the course of the work, some components have been changed and the estimate has been revised to Rs.14,10,000/-. Final bills were approved by the DRDA for Rs.12,75,068/-. The balance to be paid is Rs.3,28,068/-. The learned Government Pleader submits that this amount can be paid only after revised estimate is approved by the 1st respondent. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I am of opinion that the petitioner having completed the work as early as in 2004, there is no justification for the respondents to deny payment on the ground that the Government has not approved the revised estimate. The respondents had a duty to take appropriate steps to get the revised estimate approved by the Government expeditiously. In any event, there is no justification for not releasing the retention amount of Rs.79,100/-, since the work has been completed and the final bill for work has been approved also. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The retention amount of Rs.79,100/- shall be paid to the petitioner within one month from today. The 1st respondent shall consider the question of approval of the revised estimate as 3 expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from today. Thereafter, the amounts due to the petitioner as per the final bill shall be released within a further period of four months. I make it clear that in so far as the estimate has been revised at the instance of respondents 2 and 3, simply because the 1st respondent has not approved the revised estimate, the petitioner shall not be denied payment. It is upto to respondents 2 and 3 to find out ways and means to pay off the amounts in so far as they have no complaint regarding the execution of the work. In any event, the petitioner shall get payment of the entire amounts as admitted in the statement within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The counsel for the petitioner presses for interest also. The question of interest is left open to be agitated by the petitioner in other appropriate proceedings. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge