IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 24195 of 2008(E) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- N. BALAKRISHNAN RODARIKATH VEEDU, KUTTARATHALA, VENGANOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE VENGANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VENGANOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LSGD SUB DIVISION,ATHIYANNUR BLOCK NEEYYATTINKARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R.SABU ADV. SRI.M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24195 of 2008(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 12.01.2006 OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 15.11.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. ABI/199/2006/LSGD DATED 31.01.2006 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.02.2008. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.24195 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks payment of bill amounts allegedly due to him as recommended by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Athiyannur Block by Ext.P3. In the same, the Assistant Executive Engineer has stated that, the petitioner has executed all the items within the agreed quantity and that the power roller used for this work is petitioner's own having good quality. Therefore he recommended the Bill of the petitioner for payment of an amount of Rs. 1,44,328/-. However, the Panchayat refused to pay the bill amount to the petitioner is the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the first respondent Grama Panchayat to effect the payment due to the petitioner under Ext.P2 bill duly recommended by the second respondent in Ext.P3 within a time limit to be stipulated by this Honourable Court; ii. to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get from the first respondent Grama Panchayat the amount due under Ext.P2 bill with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of Ext.P3;” W.P(C)No.24195 of 2008 - 2 - 2. The 1st respondent - Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit in which, it is stated that the petitioner failed to execute the work as per the estimate which led to a series of correspondence. They further state in paragraph 4 thus: “4. On verification of the Bill, it is found, that there are double entries and not tally with the estimate. Moreover, petitioner failed to complete the work in time, on one reason or other, whereas other works entrusted other Beneficiary Committee, completed the work in full satisfaction. Their Bills were honoured in time. There is not latches or omission on the part of the panchayat. At any rate, if the petitioner submits revised Bill, as per law, through proper channel, panchayat is ready and willing to pay the correct amount.” 3. But in the counter affidavit they do not dispute Ext.P3. They also do not dispute the competency of the Assistant Executive Engineer to issue Ext.P3. Therefore the question is to why without disputing Ext.P3 how they can take the stand as taken in the counter affidavit. The counsel for the 1st respondent could not give any plausible explanation in this regard. He submits that this Court may pass appropriate orders. Having heard both sides, in so far as, Ext.P3 is not validly contested by the 1st respondent, I do not find any justification for the 1st respondent not to pay the amounts W.P(C)No.24195 of 2008 - 3 - covered by the bill recommended by Ext.P3. As such they cannot now insist on the petitioner submitting a fresh bill as long as Ext.P3 stands. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 1st respondent to pay the amounts as recommended in Ext.P3. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs