IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 10160 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SABU LUKOSE, S/O.LUKOSE, PUNNAKKATTU MYALIL, PERUMTHURUTHU P.O., KALLARA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LSGD, PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAIR FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 10160 OF 2008 H ==================== Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he was awarded a contract by the 2nd respondent for the construction of an approach road to Kannadichal Bridge in Kumarakam Grama Panchayat during the year 2004-05. It is stated that he had made substantial progress, but however for reasons not attributable to him, some damage has been caused. It is stated that though it is for the 3rd respondent to have taken remedial measures, as he did not do so, petitioner could not rectify the damage. It is contended that on account of all these, his entire payments have been withheld. It is for these reasons, petitioner has also moved the 3rd respondent by filing Ext.P4 where the main complaint seems to be regarding the non payment of his dues. 2. In this writ petition what is sought for by the petitioner is a direction to the respondent to consider Exts. P3 and P4 and to release the payments that are due. 3. Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent also submits that it will be only upon the recommendation of the 3rd respondent that remedial action could be taken to rectify the defects. It is stated that only after WPC 10160/08 :2 : remedying the damage, can the petitioner claim payments of his dues for the work executed by him. 4. Having heard both sides, I feel what is necessary is that the 3rd respondent should address this issue and if his recommendation is what is delaying the whole project itself, it is for the 3rd respondent to take expeditious action in this behalf. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the 2nd respondent Panchayat, the petitioner will have to wait until the 3rd respondent makes his recommendations and can claim only after he rectifies the defects. But then, he cannot be asked to wait indefinitely on account of the delay on the part of the 3rd respondent as well. 5. In these circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 3rd respondent shall take up Ext.P4 and consider the remedial measures that are necessary for rectifying the defects for the work executed by the petitioner. The 3rd respondent shall without delay suggest remedial measures and thereafter the petitioner shall rectify the defects. Once this process is completed, the 2nd respondent shall process the final bill of the petitioner and make payment of the amount that is legitimately due to him. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp