IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7594 of 2011(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.I.RAJU, S/O.AGED 62 YEARS, LATE T.E.ITHAPIRI, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, KUSUMAGIRI.P.O., KOCHI-30. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.JOSE SMT.TESSY JOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.695 001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.DIVISION, *(SHORNUR). 678 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PUBLIC HEALTH CIRCLE, *(PALAKKAD), KERALA.678 001. *CAUSE TITLE AMENDED BY INCORPORATING PLACE IN THE ADDRESS OF THE R2 SUBSTITUTED BY VADAKARA INSTEAD OF SHORNUR AND PLACE IN THE ADDRESS OF R3 SUBSTITUTED BY KOZHIKODE INSTEAD OF PALAKKAD, AS PER ORDER DTD. 31.3.2011 IN IA. 4950/11. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH, SC, KWA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.7594/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 3.3.2008 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P2:- COPIES OF REPRESENTATIONS DTD. 6.6.09 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P3:- COPIES OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 3.1.2010 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P4:- COPIES OF REPRESENTATIONS DTD. 14.12.2010 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7594 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pursuant to an agreement between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, the construction work of a wanter tank was entrusted to the petitioner, which he completed way back in 2002. However full payment has not been released so far, which according to the respondent, is for the reason that funds have not been made available by the District Collector on whose behalf the work was undertaken. 2. Irrespective of the contention now raised, fact remains that the contract is between the petitioner and the first respondent and it is the liability of the 1st respondent to pay the amount due to the petitioner. In that view of the matter the balance amount due to the petitioner should be W.P.(C) No. 7594 OF 2011 :2 : paid and such payment shall be made as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-