IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 WA.No. 2022 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21420/2008 Dated 15/07/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC: ----------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTD BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY & PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,PROJECT CIRCLE, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.MVIP DIVISION NO.3, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEEER MVIP, SUB DIVISION NO.9,RAMAMANGALAM,MOOVATTUPUZHA. 5. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT.K.MEERA RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE WPC: -------------------------------------------- KOLLAM LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,NO.Q.1004,STADIUM COMPLEX, KOLLAM REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. S.MUHAMMED HANEEF THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2022 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.07.09 in WP(C) No.21420 of 2008, directing the respondent State to make the payment to the writ petitioner of the amount due under the terms of the agreement and bills, the State has come up in this appeal. 2. The writ petitioner was aggrieved by the action of the Government in withholding the payment of a sum of Rs.10,68,619/- due to him for the work completed by him. It was contended that two different tenders of the writ petitioner were accepted by the Government and in fact in respect of the second tender work, payment has already been made. However, while making payment of the balance amount for the first work, at the time of audit the auditor raised an objection that though both works are similar in nature, the rate quoted in the second work is higher than the WA No.2022 of 2009 -:2:- first one and as such the balance amount of the first work, i.e Rs.10,68,619/-, is to be withheld and recovered for the excess quoting of payment in respect of two separate works of similar nature. 3. The learned Single Judge considering the case of both sides, on finding that in respect of two works which are different in nature separate agreements have been executed and separate work schedules were given. It was also not disputed that the work carried out by the writ petitioner was found to be satisfactory and as such the mere whims and fancies of the auditor that the work is of similar nature and higher rate is quoted, has not been correctly accepted by the learned Single Judge and in fact as observed by the auditor in Ext.P4 that he requested the Chief Engineer to drop all such objections to enable payment of bills to the writ petitioner, noting the fact that separate agreements agreeing different rates have been accepted by the Department knowing fully well the consequences. In our view also, and after perusal of the entire materials there is absolutely no merit in the appellant/State's case. Keeping the WA No.2022 of 2009 -:3:- eyes wide open once the State enters into an agreement accepting the rate quoted by it no more lies in their mouth to withhold payment after completion of the work. Hence the order of the learned Single Judge being neither illegal nor arbitrary has to be upheld. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. A.K. Basheer, Judge. ttb/vku. WA No.2022 of 2009 -:4:-