IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16300 of 2009(F) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.J. THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT PADIPPURAKKAL HOUSE, MATTUKATTA, AYYAPPANCOIL P.O., IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. MR.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUDHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, DISTRIBUTION, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICLA SUB DVSN., KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KATTAPPANA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, NEDUMKANDAM, NEDUMKANDAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.16300 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th June,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner entered into a contract with the Electricity Board for construction of an electric line. There was delay in completion of the work. According to the petitioner, it was on account of the non-supply of materials in time and consequent delay in commencement of the work. There was only part payment of the bill and petitioner's request for payment for the work completed has not been responded to. Dispute raised by the petitioner as per Exhibit-P10 which according to him was eligible to be referred to the Chief Engineer as per Clause 14, Part I General Specifications of Exhibit-P2, which reads as follows: “Any dispute or difference that may arise between the Executive Engineer and the contractor on account of contractor shall at the instances of either party be referred to the Chief Engineer whose decision given in writing shall be final, inclusive and binding. The Executive Engineer, may at his discretion delegate in W.P ( C) No.16300 of 2009 2 writing to any of this subordinates any of his powers regarding these specifications.” 2. I heard learned standing counsel for the Board also. 3. Learned counsel for the Board submits that the dispute raised by the petitioner can be referred to the Chief Engineer in terms of clause 14 of Exhibit-P2. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to treat the dispute raised by the petitioner under Exhibit-P10 as one referred to him in terms of clause 14 of Exhibit-P12 and proceed to decide the same in terms of the agreement. A decision shall be taken within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.16300 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No.16300 of 2009 4