IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14850 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.GOODWILL POWER COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, 41/1938, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, COCHIN-682018, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR JOSEPH P.KURIAN. BY ADV. SMT.M.UMA DEVI SMT.N.E.BINDU SMT.R.APARNA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PALLIMUKKU, KOCHI-682 016. 2. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, HEAD OFFICE AT "JALABHAVAN", VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM 695033, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN. 3. THE MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., BROADWAY BRANCH, KOCHI-682031. ADV.M.DINESH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.14850 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner undertook some work on behalf of the Kerala Water Authority, viz., supply and installation of TOD meters. As security for due performance of the work, the petitioner furnished security deposits which were to be in force for a specified period. Those periods are over. The petitioner now wants the security deposits back. The respondents seek to forfeit the amount to the Government account on the ground that the petitioner did not claim the amount within a reasonable time. The petitioner approached the Civil Court by filing O.S.No.1135/2008 before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, who, by Ext.P8 judgment, after finding entitlement of the petitioner, refused to direct release of the amount on technical grounds. Apparently emboldened by that judgment, the respondents have initiated further proceedings to forfeit the amount, which has resulted in Ext.P9 communication from the 3rd respondent-bank to the petitioner. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following direction: “i) issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records relating to Exts.P-5 and P-6 and quash the demand of the 2nd Respondent made in Ext.P-5 and P-6.” 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for respondent 1 w.p.c.14850/10 2 and 2 also. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 are public authorities. They cannot deny amounts due to a contractor who has executed work to their satisfaction on the ground that there was delay in claiming the security deposit. I do not think that it looks good on respondents 1 and 2 to deny money admittedly due to the petitioner on technical grounds. Accordingly, I am of opinion that respondents 1 and 2 should refund the security deposit to the petitioner. Accordingly, there would be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to refund the security deposits due to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge