IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 9284 of 2009(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- E.T.VARGHESE, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, ELAVUNGAL HOUSE, AYYAPPANKOVIL, MATTUKATTA, CONVENOR FOR THE BENEFICIARY COMMITTEE OF ELLATHUPADU-KIZHAKKEMATTUKATTA ROAD, AYYAPPANKOVIL. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 2. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KATTAPPANA BLOCK, IDUKKI DIST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.K.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9284 of 2009(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1 : Agreement No.108/2005-06 executed between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. EXHIBIT P2 : Letter dated 5/8/2006 addressing the 1st respondent. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT:- Nil. True copy P.A. to Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.9284 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Convenor of the Beneficiary Committee constituted by the 2nd respondent for implementation of the work in Illathupadi-Kizhakkemattukatta Road. This work is one included under the flood relief works, financially helped by the Government of India. The total estimate account was Rs.2 lakhs. Ext.P1 is the copy of the agreement. According to the petitioner he had completed a part of the work ie, metalling and soiling by 25/3/2008 and the measurement of the work was taken by the officers concerned. By Ext.P2 the second respondent recommended for payment of the Part Bill. Since no action was taken in the matter, this writ petition has been filed. 2. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the matter. It is averred in paragraph 2 that the District Collector, Idukki issued Administrative Sanction for the work . It is also stated that petitioner was selected as the Convenor of the beneficiary committee and he started the work after executing necessary agreement with Block Development Officer, W.P.(C)No.9284 of 2009 2 Kattappana on 13/1/2006. After completion of the metalling works, Assistant Engineer of the 2nd respondent office prepared CCIst/Part Bill of the above work amounting Rs.93,587/- including Sales Tax and Welfare fund. The Assistant Executive Engineer, DRDA, Idukki has audited and passed the bill for an amount of Rs.93,587/- including Sales Tax and Welfare Fund. On 5/8/2006, CC I/Part Bill was submitted to District Collector, Idukki for the release of funds for effecting the part payment of the above work. 3. Part payment could not be effected, going by the averments in the counter affidavit, in view of the objection raised by the District Collector that the work has to be completed and a final bill has to be submitted. It is also admitted in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit that the Block Panchayath Committee constituted a sub committee including Block Panchayath President, Standing Committee Chairman and Ward Member, who visited the work site and reported to District Collector that the work is partially completed. It is also stated that the Convenor along with Block Development Officer executed Power of Attorney with Federal Bank Kanchiyar Branch and the bank is W.P.(C)No.9284 of 2009 3 obliged to release the funds in advance for the completion of the work and in turn Block Development Officer will make payment of the amount to the Federal Bank, Kanchiyar Branch only. As the Power of Attorney is in effect, the Block Development Officer can make payment to Federal Bank Kanchiyair and not to the convenor. The District Collector will have to allot sufficient amount for the payment of the bill. 4. The objection taken by the District Collector, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be justified in the light of the fact that he is entitled to be paid amount in terms of the Part Bill which has been recommended by the Assistant Engineer after audit. It is pointed out that the petitioner is not a contractor and unless the amount towards Part Bill is disbursed, he will not be able to complete the balance work also. The petitioner is prepared to complete the balance work, once the amount covered by the part bill is disbursed. 5. Therefore there will be a direction to the District Collector to sanction the payment towards the part bill and release the fund for effecting part payment of the work through the second respondent. The same will be done within a period of W.P.(C)No.9284 of 2009 4 one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Block Development Officer will take appropriate action in terms of the Power of Attorney executed. The amount can be disbursed in terms of the agreement executed by the petitioner. The petitioner will complete the balance work without further delay. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj