IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 30023 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- M.K.UDAYAKUMAR, 1/587, MORICKAL HOUSE, PALACHUVADU, KAKKANAD. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, CARMEL CENTRE, BANARJEE ROAD, KOCHI-REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN FOR R2 SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS, SC, M.C.,ALP FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.30023/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29.9.2008. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.7.2009 FROM PUBLIC GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL CELL WITH THE REPORT DATED 1.7.2009. EXTS.OF R1 EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION VIDE NO.11 DATED 29.10.2003. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.1(g) DATED 6.12.2003. EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.10 OF 24.1.2004. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30023 OF 2009 (W) ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The 1st respondent awarded the work of construction of a Town Hall to the 2nd respondent Corporation. The 2nd respondent in turn awarded the work to the petitioner. Accordingly, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, he executed certain amount of work and Rs.2,18,312/- is remaining unpaid. It is therefore, the writ petition is filed. 2. The contention raised by the 2nd respondent is that more than Rs.5 lakhs is due to it from the 1st respondent and since the 1st respondent is refusing to make payment, it is unable to pay the dues to the petitioner. Affidavit filed by the 1st respondent shows that according to the 1st respondent, 2nd respondent committed breach of contract and was relieved of the contract at their risk and cost. It is stated that for the actual work done, they have released the amount due and no further amount is payable to the 2nd respondent. 3. Therefore, it is obvious that the petitioner entered into WPC No. 30023/09 :2 : a contract with the 2nd respondent and that agreement obliges the 2nd respondent to make payment of the petitioner's dues. 2nd respondent has no case that in terms of the agreement, payment to the petitioner need be released only on receipt of the dues from the 1st respondent. If that be so, irrespective of the dispute that the 2nd respondent has with the 1st respondent and irrespective of the 1st respondent's alleged refusal to pay the amount to the 2nd respondent, so long as the 2nd respondent has no dispute about its liability to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is bound to make payment of the petitioner's dues. 4. For the aforesaid reasons and also as there is no dispute for the 2nd respondent about the amount claimed by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to pay an amount of Rs.2,18,312/- (Rupees two lakh eighteen thousand three hundred and twelve only) to the petitioner. This payment shall be made, at any rate, within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and on failure thereof, the amount will carry interest at the rate of 10% from today. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp