IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No. 621 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16462/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- R.VISWANATHAN, AGED 55, CONTRACTOR, SHYAM NIVAS MARUTHAN KUZHI, KANJIRAMPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- THE SECRETARY, JILLA PANCHAYATH, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI. PIRAPPANCODE V.S. SUDHIR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No.621 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ. Petitioner is a contractor, who has executed certain works for the District Panchayat, Trivandrum. He has filed the writ petition for a direction to the respondents to release the amounts due under the final bill. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the District Panchayat had no objection whatsoever to release the sum of Rs.5,53,935/- to the petitioner. However, he had brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that there is an audit objection regarding the grant of tender to the petitioner at 30% above the estimated rate. 3. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of W.P.(C) No.16462 of 2007 dated 29th October, 2007, has directed the respondent/District Panchayat, Trivandrum to release a sum of Rs. 5,53,935/- towards Ext.P2 final bill at the earliest, at any rate within six weeks from the date of the order. Further, the learned Single Judge has observed in his order that the petitioner shall take effective steps to remove the audit objection regarding the grant of tender. Aggrieved by this portion of the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner is before us in this writ appeal. 4. Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudhir takes notice for the respondent/District Panchayat. 5. Though the matter is posted for admission, by consent of both the counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 6. The petitioner, who is a contractor, has submitted a final bill for Rs.9,53,681/- for certain works said to have been executed by him for the District Panchayat. Since final bills were not settled by the District Panchayat, the petitioner was before this court for an appropriate direction to the District Panchayat. W.A. 621/2008. 2 7. Since learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that the District Panchayat is prepared to release Rs.5,53,935/-, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the District Panchayat to release that amount. In so far as the balance amount is concerned, the learned Single Judge has directed the petitioner to remove/rectify the defects pointed out by the auditors. 8. Petitioner is only a contractor. He cannot be directed to remove the audit objection in the awarding of contract/tender by the District Panchayat. If anybody can remove the audit objection it can only be done by the District Panchayat. Therefore, this portion of the order of the learned Single Judge requires to be modified by us. Accordingly, we pass the following: Order i) The writ appeal is disposed of. ii) The respondent shall comply with the orders and directions issued by this court in so far as the release of Rs.5,53,935/- within the time specified by the learned Single Judge, if it is not already released. iii) In so far as the other direction issued by the learned Single Judge is concerned, the District Panchayat shall take all effective steps to remove the audit objection regarding the awarding of contract in favour of the petitioner. With these observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb/DK.