IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27642 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ R.BANERJI, PROPRIETOR, M/S.FLOW TECH ENGINEERS & SUPPLIERS, KADUVINAL, VALLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, P.H.DIVISION, KOLLAM, PIN-691 001. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, SASTHAMCOTTA, PIN-690 521. R1 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.27642/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE WORK AGREEMENT DT.D 18.5.2009. P2:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR EXTENDING OF TIME AND ORDER PASSED. P3:- COPY OF THE ENTRIES IN THE M. BOOK. P4:- COPY OF THE GOODS RECEIVED SHEET OF THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY. P5:- COPY OF THE OFFICIAL NOTE DTD. 4.12.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 27642 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, who is a firm named as “M/s Flow Tech Engineers & Suppliers” was a successful bidder for a work executed by the 2nd respondent under MPLAD scheme 2007 - 2008 for supplying and installing Electriolytics Chlorination Unit at Thekeemuri, Kayamkulangara Pump House in Sooranadu (N) Panchayat. 2. According to the petitioner he executed the work within the extended time. However payment was not made and therefore this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to release the contract amount of Rs.2,13,000/-. 3. The case was adjourned for the Standing Counsel to obtain instructions in the matter. According to the learned counsel, the period specified for completing the work was two months and that time was extended till W.P.(C) No. 27642 OF 2011 :2 : January, 2010. It is his case that the work was not completed within the extended time and that the petitioner completed the work only by November, 2010. It is also submitted by him the work executed by the petitioner was defective, as a result of which the project itself has to be abandoned. According to him, on account of the above, the District Collector, who is to disburse the funds for payment to the petitioner through 3rd respondent, has refused to release the amounts. It is stated that in these circumstances payment claimed by the petitioner could not be made. 4. Although counsel for the petitioner denies the allegations raised by the respondents, in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court can enforce only admitted liabilities. From the submissions made by the respondents it is evident that they are disputing not only the execution of the work but also even W.P.(C) No. 27642 OF 2011 :3 : the quality of the work executed. In such circumstances the liability being a dispute petitioner cannot seek any order for payment of the amount claimed. Therefore leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the claim before the appropriate civil court, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge