IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 8952 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.V. GEORGE, GOVT. CONTRACTOR, KANAMPURAM HOUSE, MURIVILANGU, VILANGU P.O. EDATHALA VIA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF FINANCE GOVT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS SUB DIVISION, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS SUB DIVISION,ALUVA. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF DETAILS OF WORKS EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER R2. P1(A) COPY OF DETAILS OF WORK EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER R3. P2 COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DT 24.1.08 P3 COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 4.6.07. P4 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 29.1.08 TO R2 P4(A) COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 29.1.08 TO R3 P5 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 6.2.08 P6 COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 15.2.08 /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE S.SIRI JAGAN, J ============== W.P.(C).No. 8952 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a contractor, who executed some works on behalf of the respondents. The balance bill amount payable to the petitioner has been withheld on the ground that there is a vigilance enquiry. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay the amounts due to him for execution of the work. In an identical matter, another learned Single Judge of this Court had passed Ext.P6 judgment in the following terms: “The petitioner is a contractor, who has been denied payment on the ground that a vigilance enquiry in respect of the work is pending. Ext.P1, according to him, contained the details of the work he has executed and the amount that is due. It is stated by the petitioner that the payments are denied on account of the pendency of the vigilance enquiry. 2. The petitioner refers to Ext.P3, judgment of a Division Bench in W.A.No.701/2007, wherein dealing with an identical case. The Division Bench directed that the amount due be released to the appellants therein on the appellants furnishing bank guarantee. 3. The facts of this case are identical to the facts of the case in W.A.No.701/07 dealt with by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment. Hence, I am satisfied that the petitioner is also entitled to the similar relief. W.P.(C).No. 8952 OF 2008 2 Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing that depending upon the priority of the petitioner, if the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee for the amount that is due, the payment will be released to the petitioner. It is directed that the petitioner shall keep the bank guarantee alive until the vigilance enquiry is completed. The bank guarantee shall be furnished to the 3rd respondent.” Following that judgment, I dispose of this writ petition directing that depending upon the priority of the petitioner, if the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee for the amount due, payment would be released to the petitioner. It is further clarified that the petitioner shall keep the bank guarantee alive until the vigilance enquiry is completed. The bank guarantee shall be furnished to the 3rd respondent. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-