IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 8710 of 2010(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RANGAN.K.R., KANNATTUVILA KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU, KURUTTIKKADU, MANNAR, CHENGANNOOR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. PROJECT OFFICER, D.R.D.A. OFFICE, ZHACCCRIA BAZAR, ALAPPUZHA. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.8710/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE APPROVED ESTIMATE P2 COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR INFORMATION P3 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11/5/2009 BEARING NO.E.612/09 FROM THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CHENGANNOOR RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 8710 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as 'approved nominee' for carrying out certain works in respect of the years of 1996- 97 in Mannar Panchayath, Chengannoor Block. The work involved the construction of a 'cross bar' and some improvements to the Marakam Puncha in Mannar Panchayath, estimated cost of which was fixed as `.2,60,000/-. It is stated that the petitioner had completed the work before 31.3.2004 and inspite of submitting the bills, the amount due to the petitioner was not fully satisfied, though a part payment has been effected. Prayer is to give appropriate direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to settle the bills and to disburse the due amount within a reasonable time. 2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that, a part bill for `.2,02,660/- was sanctioned and payment was already made to the petitioner. It is stated that the delay in finalizing the proceedings was due WP (C) No. 8710 of 2010 2 to many reasons as explained in paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit. It is however added that, necessary steps have been taken for doing 'check measurement' of the bills through LSGD Division and that a request has been forwarded to the Commissioner for Rural Development to release sufficient fund and sanction for making payment to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner to obtain the due amount and that the stand taken by the 2nd respondent in the counter affidavit is only with regard to the delay involved and further that the requirement pointed out in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit is to obtain “3 months' time” for settling the dispute. Learned counsel submits that the counter affidavit is dated 7.7.2010 and inspite of the lapse of one year (instead of 3 months), the petitioner is still made to wait in the dark. WP (C) No. 8710 of 2010 3 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to finalize the proceedings with regard to the claim put forth by the petitioner, which pertains only to the balance amount of about `.58,000/-. The proceedings shall be finalized in accordance with law and the due amount shall be disbursed to the petitioner within '6 weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. rkc