IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 20946 of 2010(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ROY VARGHESE, AGED 34, S/O.VARGHESE, PUTHENVELIYIL HOUSE, THIRUNELLOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA. *ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED: 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA -1. * IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 30/07/10 IN I.A. 10579/10. R1 & R2 BY SRI. M. DINESH, S.C, K.W.A. ADDL.R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/08/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.C NO. 20990 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.20946/2010-P: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BEARING NO.75/09-10/EE/PHA WITH THE R.2. FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE R.1. ON 30/09/2009. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BILL MODULE AND THE VOUCHER PREPARED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. DTD. 14/05/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.20946 (P), 20990 (W), 21288 (I), 21302 (K), 21316 (L), 21347 (P), 21503 (K), 21509 (K), 21634 (D) & 21719 (L) of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 31st day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T These are writ petitions filed by Contractors engaged by Kerala Water Authority for execution of projections under the Drought Relief Scheme. Based on the agreements executed by the petitioners with the Kerala Water Authority, it is the admitted position that they have completed the work. However, payments have not been made by the Water Authority despite the petitioners submitting their final bills. It is in these circumstances, these writ petitions have been filed seeking a direction to the Water Authority to effect payment. 2. Stand taken by the Water Authority is that the project was entrusted to them by the District Collector, Alappuzha and that the cost of the project is to be reimbursed by the District Collector. It is stated that despite the Water Authority having submitted the WP(C) Nos.20946, 20990 of 2010 & connected cases -2- final bills, the District Collector has not so far released the payments and it is therefore that the payments have not been made to the respective petitioners. 3. Considering this very objection raised by the Water Authority, in WP(C) Nos.21634 & 21719/2010 this Court passed order dated 12/08/2010, which reads as under:- “The petitioner seeks payment of bill amounts for the work done by him on behalf of the 1st respondent. Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that it is based on an administrative sanction by the District Collector, the 3rd respondent herein, that the work was done and the amounts for the work done have to come from the District Collector. Learned Govt Pleader seeks time to get instructions. But I do not think that for that, relief to the petitioner should be delayed. As far as the petitioner is concerned his agreement is with the 1st respondent and he has also executed the work satisfactorily. Therefore, it is the 1st respondent who has to pay the amounts due to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, there would be a direction to the 1st respondent to pay to the petitioner the amounts due to the petitioner for the work done by him, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Post the writ petition for hearing after vacation since the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 seeks a decision on the liability of the 3rd respondent to provide funds also.” Therefore as far as the aforesaid two writ petitions are concerned, the justification offered by the Water Authority has been rejected WP(C) Nos.20946, 20990 of 2010 & connected cases -3- and this Court has found that the Water Authority, which has entered into the agreement with the petitioners, is bound to make payment without waiting for receipt of the amounts from the District Collector. Therefore, relief has been granted to the petitioners in these two cases. 4. In so far as the remaining cases are concerned also, facts and defence offered are identical, and therefore, there is no reason to take a different view. In that view of the matter, making interim order dated 12/08/2010 extracted above absolute and applicable to all the writ petitions, and directing that payment shall be made on that basis, these writ petitions are disposed of. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg