IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 36212 of 2007(J) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR PWD ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR 'KARTHIKA' SREE CHITRA NAGAR, PANGODE, THIRUMALA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHRISTAL RAJ, TV HOUSE, TC 33/850 KOCHUVELI TTP.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (POLITICAL) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, BUILDINGS AND LOCAL WORKS, PUBLIC OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, T.B. JUNCTION NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. KERALA PRADESH CONGRESS COMMITTEE (I) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT RAMESH CHENNITHALA INDIRA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD FOR R1 TO R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON 09/04/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 36212 OF 2007 J ==================== Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are PWD contractors. In so far as the first petitioner is concerned, it is stated that in connection with the visit of Mrs.Sonia Gandhi, President of Indian National Congress(I), the 4th respondent entrusted him the work of providing temporary lighting arrangements and DG set at NSS College ground Helipad at Dhanuvachapuram. The work was to be executed on an emergent basis and the first petitioner completed the same. Thereafter he submitted Ext.P1 bill for Rs.67,453/-, which was approved by the 4th respondent and forwarded to the 2nd respondent. Ext.P1 is the bill and Ext.P2 is the letter of the 4th respondent forwarding the bill and requesting that payment may be made. 2. Similarly, the second petitioner was awarded a similar work in connection with the visit of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi at the Municipal Stadium, Neyyattinkara. He also completed the work and submitted Ext.P3 bill, which was also approved and recommended by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P4. Similarly, the 5th respondent also entrusted the work of providing public address system at Municipal Stadium, Neyyattinkara on 18/4/2006 WPC 36212/07 :2 : to the second petitioner. He completed the work and submitted bill for Rs.30,000/-. Ext.P5 is the approved bill and Ext.P6 is the letter issued by the 5th respondent recommending payment. Even thereafter, since payments as above were not forthcoming, petitioners submitted Exts. P7 and P8 representations to the 2nd respondent and as even the representations did not yield any result, this writ petition has been filed. 3. When the matter came up for orders before the court on 8/2/2008, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the respondents had not authorised the petitioners to execute any work and that the petitioners have done the work in connection with the VVIP visit, the respondents have only supervised the execution of the work and are not liable to pay any amount to the contractor. According to them, it is the 6th respondent, at whose instance Mrs.Sonia Gandhi visited the State, who is liable for paying the bills of the petitioners. 4. In view of the submission made as above, the learned Government Pleader was directed to file a statement. Accordingly, statement dated 14/2/208 was filed by the 4th respondent. It is stated that since Mrs.Sonia Gandhi is a person having Z plus category protection, it is the duty of the State to provide infrastructures for the protection of the WPC 36212/07 :3 : VVIP. According to the respondents, the arrangements for the stage and grounds were supervised by the Kerala Public Works Department, which was orally directed by the Home Department to supervise the work. It is their definite contention that the entire amount expended by the petitioners are to be paid by the political party on whose request the VVIP visited the State. Though the 4th respondent has no dispute about the fact that the petitioners have executed the work or about the quantification of the dues as per the bills produced along with the writ petition, it is their contention that no Government agency have executed any agreement with the petitioners and that the petitioners have executed the work on condition that the payment will be effected by the 6th respondent. 5. In view of the definite stand taken by the 4th respondent, by order dated 25/2/2008, this court directed the petitioners to produce documentary evidence to prove that it was on the instructions of the respondents that they have executed the work in respect of which the claim is raised. Accordingly, along with IA 4827/08, petitioners have produced Exts. P9 and P10. Ext.P9 is the communication issued by the 5th respondent to the 4th respondent where it is stated that on the instructions of the 4th respondent, the Assistant Engineer has arranged the work of WPC 36212/07 :4 : providing lighting arrangements and DG Set at NSS College at Helipad, Dhanuvachapuram on quotation basis. It is stated that there were three quotations and that, the first petitioner's had quoted the lowest rate. It is also stated that in the negotiation, first petitioner had reduced the quoted rate by 3% and on that basis, the request was made for approving the quotation and ratifying his action in having arranged the work. Ext.P10 is a similar communication issued by the 5th respondent to the 4th respondent seeking approval of the quotation submitted by the 2nd respondent and to ratify his action in arranging a work for providing temporary lighting arrangements and DG set in connection with Mrs.Sonia Gandhi's visit at Municipal Stadium at Neyyattinkara. 6. The question that arises for consideration is whether the respondents 1 to 5 are liable to pay the amount claimed by the petitioners in Exts.P1, P3 and P5 bills submitted. If the contention of the 4th respondent as reflected in the statement is to be accepted, the petitioners will have to enforce their claims against the 6th respondent. In my view, respondents 1 to 5 cannot wriggle out of their liability to pay the bill submitted by the petitioners. It is also my definite view that a deliberate attempt has been made by the 4th respondent by attempting to mislead WPC 36212/07 :5 : this court to think that the role of theirs was only to supervise the work that has been done by the petitioners at the behest of the 6th respondent. If as stated by the 4th respondent, his role was confined to supervision of the work alone, he ought to have explained in what background have they issued Exts.P9 and P10, which also refers to the arrangement that the 5th respondent has made on quotation basis and the approval that has been given by the 4th respondent for what he has done. Exts. P9 and P10 certainly shows that it was the respondents themselves who arranged the work and they themselves have engaged the petitioners for doing the work. This inference of mine is fortified by Exts.P1 to P6 as well. Ext.P1 is the bill submitted by the 1st petitioner in connection with the work he has done. Ext.P1 shows that it carries the seal and signature of the 4th respondent. Ext.P2 is the letter issued by the 4th respondent requesting the Protocol Officer of the 1st respondent to make payment of the bill amount claimed by the 1st petitioner. Similar is the case in regard to Ext.P3 bill submitted by the 2nd petitioner which also has been approved and recommended by the 5th respondent and the Assistant Engineer. Ext.P3 also has been recommended for payment by the 4th respondent in Ext.P4. Ext.P5 is the bill submitted by the 2nd petitioner for the sound system that WPC 36212/07 :6 : has been provided by him. That also has been approved by the Assistant Engineer and countersigned by the 5th respondent. Ext.P6 shows that the 5th respondent has forwarded the bill to the 1st respondent recommending for payment. 7. Therefore, Exts. P1 to P6 and P9 and P10 shows in clear terms that it is respondents 1 to 5 who have arranged the work and engaged the petitioners to do the work. It may be true that they would have arranged the work for the protection of the VVIP who visited the state at the instance of the 6th respondent. If at all it is the 6th respondent who is liable to pay the amount, it is up to respondents 1 to 5 to settle the bill of the contractors who were engaged by them for the work involved and then claim reimbursement of the same from the 6th respondent. The fact that there is no written agreement between respondents 1 to 5 and the petitioners in my view is absolutely inconsequential, particularly when the documents produced by the petitioners, the correctness of which is not contradicted by any one of the aforesaid respondents, speaks clearly that it is at the instance of the respondents that the petitioners have executed the work. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and I do so. 8. Before concluding, I should add a word about the conduct of WPC 36212/07 :7 : the 4th respondent. The statement discloses an absolutely misleading version. Despite the existence of Exts. P9 and P10 and Exts. P1 to P6, the 4th respondent has filed a statement in this court asserting that the role of the Public Works Department was only with supervising work executed by the petitioners. When their own documents are produced by the petitioners, the correctness of which was not even disputed by the respondent even during the hearing of the case, speaks otherwise. The 4th respondent in my view ought not have resorted to this undesirable attitude. While I express my displeasure on the conduct of the 4th respondent I do not propose to proceed further with the matter and leave it at that. 9. Writ petition will stand allowed and there will be a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to pay Rs.1,96,463/- to the petitioners in terms of Exts.P1 to P6. The payment shall be made within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp