IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23051 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- N.V.BABY, S/O.SIMON VARGHESE, PERICKAMATTATHIL, EZHAKKARANADU SOUTH P.O., PUTHENCRUZ (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENTING ENGINEER, MUVATTUPUZHA VALLEY IRRIGATION PROJECT (MVIP) CIRCLE, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 23051 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 13th August,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent for carrying out the work of MVIP- Formation of Manjoor Distributory- Pipe Line crossing in Railway portion at KM 47/700-800 between Kuruppanthara and Ettumanoor Railway Station. According to the petitioner, he has completed 4 items of work except concreting of RCC inspection chambers in item No.1 in the schedule. According to the petitioner, he did not do so as advised by the respondents. Later, respondents decided to retender the work without risk and cost of the petitioner. Relevant portion of Ext.P5 reads as follows: “The above facts were discussed in the Review Meeting of MVIP held on 7.3.2009, conducted by Additional Chief Secretary (WRD) and instructed that the work can be done as additional work with revised estimate, being an extra work based on market rate. Also suggested that the right way is to retender the work with new estimate. In the circumstances explained above and to safeguard the best interest of Government, it is hereby ordered to close the contract without risk and cost on either sides subject to execution of closure of Agreement.” W.P ( C) No. 23051 of 2009 2 2. Petitioner’s grievance arises out of the fact that the work completed by him has not been measured so far and without doing so, the work is permitted to be completed by a subsequent contractor. It will be difficult for the employer to assess the work completed by the petitioner and thereafter make the payment due in this regard. This grievance has been highlighted in Exts.P6 and P8 representations. 3. Petitioner has now been required to execute a closure Agreement in view of the fact that contract has been terminated without risk and cost of the petitioner. Petitioner is correct when he contends that measurement of the work already completed is to be effected before he is called upon to execute a closure Agreement. 4. Exts.P6 and P8 shall therefore be looked into by the 2nd respondent and final measurement of the work done by the petitioner shall be completed before the petitioner is called upon to execute a closure agreement, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 23051 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No. 23051 of 2009 4