IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 W.P(C).No. 8823 of 2009(W) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.A.JELTON, GOVT.CONTRACTOR, KIZHAKKEVEETTIL HOUSE, KANNAMALY.PO,KOCHI-8. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CENTRAL CIRCLE,THRISSUR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, ERNAKULAM. GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 8823 OF 2009 (W) ===================== Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be a contractor. According to him, for having executed the work of Anti Sea Erosion Work of the Reformation and raising of damaged and sunken sea wall from Ch.15720 m to 16283 m between CP Stone 4346 and 4349 North of Velankanny Church in Chellanam island and Anti Sea Erosion Work of the Reformation of damaged sea wall from Ch.12800 m to 13511 m between CP Stone 4337 and 4340 at Kandakkadavu in Chellanam Island - Part I- Reformation of sea wall from Ch.12800 m to 12900 m and Ch.12930 m to 13070 m (240 m), an amount of Rs.44 lakhs is due to him from the 2nd respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, while so, the respondents have invited tenders by Exts.P1, P2 and P3 and he wants to participate in respect of item Nos.2, 3 and 4 of Ext.P1, item No.2 of Ext.P2 and all the 5 items of Ext.P3 tender notice. 3. In so far as the EMD that is to be remitted in terms of Exts.P1 to P3 are concerned, by Ext.P4, petitioner requested the 1st respondent that the same be appropriated from out of the WPC 8823/09 :2 : amount due to him from the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, there has not been any response to Ext.P4. Petitioner is also relying on Exts.P5 to P8 judgments rendered by this Court directing adjustment towards EMD in similar circumstances. 4. If as stated by the petitioner, amount is due to him from the 2nd respondent, there is no reason why the same shall not be adjusted towards his EMD that is payable under Exts.P1 to P3. This contention of the petitioner is fully supported by Exts.P5 to P8 judgments also. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 for adjustment of the amounts due to him from the 2nd respondent and if amount is actually due from the 2nd respondent as contended by him, adjust the same towards the EMD that is payable by the petitioner for the works notified in Exts.P1 to P3, for which he intends to submit his tenders. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp