IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 1369 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14518/2011 Dated 29/07/2011 .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1.: KERALA SHIPPING & INLAND NAVIGATION COR. LTD,38/924-A,UDAYANAGAR ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682020,REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BY ADV. SRI.V.J.MATHEW, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.BIJISH B.TOM SRI.VIPIN P.VARGHESE SRI.CEJO J.THYCHERY RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NOS. 2 & 3: 1. M/S.SREE NARAYANA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, SREENIVAS, OPP.KSRTC BUS STATION,KOLLAM-691001 REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, V.VARADARAJAN 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 3. THE DIRECTOR, INLAND VAVIGATION DIRECTORATE, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT,KALLADA HOUSE, ASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM-692002. ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR FOR R-1 R2 BY ADV. SRI. GEORGE MECHERIL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. NO. 1369 OF 2011 APPENDIX ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.7.2011 IN W.P.(C) 10213/2011. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. NO. 1369 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 3rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. The appeal is filed by the Kerala Shipping & Inland Navigation Corporation against the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing payment for the work done by the first respondent, which is construction of a boat jetty at Karunagappally. There is no dispute that the first respondent has constructed the boat jetty and the appellant is willing to pay for the same. However, the dispute is with regard to the payment claimed by the first respondent for the temporary jetty constructed, which, according to the first respondent, is done in terms of part of the contract. During hearing, we directed the Civil Engineer concerned overseeing the project, to appear in court. He appeared before us and submitted that even though temporary jetty was conceived in the contract, there was no necessity for such a jetty and so much so, the first respondent was not required to construct it. Therefore, according to him, payment for temporary jetty cannot be made as W.A. 1369/2011 2 according to the appellant, no such temporary jetty was constructed. 2. Before the learned Single Judge and before us the first respondent contended that temporary jetty was constructed. However, even according to the first respondent, before verifying the correctness of the claim and approval of the bill, the first respondent demolished the temporary jetty. Even assuming that the claim is correct, we are unable to uphold the first respondent's claim for payment because the contract obviously provides for verification of the work done and satisfaction of the appellant that the work is done in accordance with the contract and unless the Engineer concerned certifies completion of work in terms of the contract, the contractor is not entitled to payment for the bill. The first respondent has no explanation as to why he demolished the temporary jetty, if at all it was constructed before the Engineer concerned took measurement and cleared the bill for payment. So much so, we are of the view that the appellant is perfectly justified in declining payment for the temporary jetty. 3. The appeal is accordingly allowed by vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge; but with a direction to the appellant to pay the balance if any, for the construction of the new jetty in terms of the contract. W.A. 1369/2011 3 If payments are already made nothing need to be done by the appellant. The appeal is allowed as above. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) KNC/-