IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5448 of 2007(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.H.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. SRI. HAMSA, KARIMPANAKAL, THEKKUMBHAGOM P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADVS. MR.M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, MR.B.SOMADASAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE M.V.I.P. DIVISION NO.1, THODUPUZHA. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, KANJAR POLICE STATION, KANJAR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.5448/2007-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 02/06/2006 IN O.P. NO. 17966/2000 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A4-1834/2004 DTD. 30/09/2006 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 09/10/2006 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DTD. 15/01/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A4-1834/2000 DTD. 27/01/2007 OF THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.5448 of 2007-W = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010. Judgment The petitioner was a contractor. He carried out certain works for the first respondent State. It appears that there was a theft of certain articles from the site. That led to a police case. Even going by Ext.P5, the stolen articles have been seized by the police and they are in the custody of the police. The Department takes the stand that the amounts withheld from the petitioner, i.e., Rs.26,096/-, can be released to the petitioner only after getting back the stolen materials from the police custody. The petitioner is not the accused. Whatever that be, the mere fact that the police are yet to return the seized articles is no reason to deny the petitioner the right to collect amounts due to him. The question of custody of articles involved in a criminal case would depend upon orders that may be passed WPC5448/07 -: 2 :- by the competent criminal court, subject of course to any decision on any civil dispute thereafter by the civil court. At any rate, these matters cannot stand in the way of the petitioner being paid his due particularly when the only ground of retention is the fact that the articles are in the custody of the police. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed directing that the amount mentioned in Ext.P5 shall be released to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The claim for interest as made by the petitioner is refused. There will be no order as to costs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/0303