IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 2474 of 2007() --------------------- JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN W.P.(C)NO.32764/2006 DATED 14/8/2007 APPELLANT: PETITIONER --------------------- VIDYADHARAN NAIR, AGED 50, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, USHUS, KASANAMKODU, KOTTAKKAL P.O., PERUNKADAVILA, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, PERUMKADAVILA BLOCK PANCHAYAT, PERUNKADAVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PERUNKADAVILA BLOCK PANCHAYAT, PERUNKADAVILA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. BANIT.A.D, MARGALA BHAVAN, MANOOR, VELLARADA VILLAGE, DALUMUGHAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CHEIF TECHNICAL EXAMINER OF FINANCE WING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. FOR R1 ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.A.No.2474 of 2007 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Koshy, J. Petitioner was entrusted with a contract for reconstruction and renovation of road. Accordingly, he completed the work. But, the amounts due to him were not fully paid. Therefore, he approached this Court for payment of the balance amount. There was a dispute whether work was completed satisfactorily. The learned Single Judge directed the Chief Technical Examiner to file the report before this Court. In the report, it is stated that road is in good condition, payment was recommended as per the bill except for an amount of Rs.70,268/- which is liable to be recovered from the appellant. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge directed the Chief Technical Examiner to be make available the report before the Ombudsman within a period of one week and, the Ombudsman was directed to dispose of the matter within one month, after considering the objections of the W.A.No.2474/2007 -: 2 :- petitioner. In the meanwhile, the second respondent was directed to release Rs.1,50,000/- to the appellant/petitioner within a period of one week. According to the appellant even after deducting the amount of Rs.70,268/-, huge amount are due to him and the entire amount ought to have been ordered. 2. On going through the judgment, we feel that no grounds are made out to the appellant to file the writ appeal. The Ombudsman is directed to consider the report and pass orders within four weeks and it is for the petitioner to file objection to the report of the Chief Technical Examiner, before the Ombudsman and get the entire amount due released. Writ appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (J.B.KOSHY, J UDGE) (K.HEMA, J UDGE ms