IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10964 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T.J.SEBASTIAN, S/O.JOSEPH AGED 54, THOTTAKATH HOUSE, EDAYAR, BINANIPURAM-683502. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE SECRETARY, ELOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ELOOR, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683501. BY ADV.SHRI V.SANKARA RAJA (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,J. -------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.10964 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2008 J U D G M E N T The grievance voiced by the petitioner who was a contractor to the respondent-Panchayat for the construction of a shopping complex is that, even though the Panchayat sanctioned a part bill for Rs.4,76,304/- submitted by the petitioner subject to the petitioner executing a supplementary agreement, the Panchayat has incorporated a condition in the proposed supplementary agreement that the petitioner will not have the right to go in for any legal action in connection with the execution of the work pursuant to the supplementary agreement. 2. The Panchayat has filed a detailed counter affidavit and I have heard the submissions of Mr.S.Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Sankara Raja, learned counsel for the Panchayat. Mr.V.Sankara Raja submitted that the Panchayat will not insist for incorporation of a clause in the agreement which restricts the petitioner from resorting to legal action. But at the same he submitted that the petitioner has not W.P.(C)No.10964/08 -2- been executing the work on time as a result of which the Panchayat is suffering heavy loss on various counts. Therefore, the Panchayat should be permitted to incorporate a clause in the agreement by which time is made the essence of the supplementary agreement and the petitioner agrees that the work will be completed within the agreed time. 3. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that it will suffice from both sides' point of view, if this writ petition is disposed of directing the Panchayat to release the part bill amount on condition that the petitioner executes a supplementary agreement which does not restrain the petitioner from taking legal action in the above dispute, but at the same time, incorporates a condition that the time for execution will be the essential term of the contract between the parties and that the petitioner shall complete the work within the period mentioned in the supplementary agreement, giving right of action to the Panchayat against the petitioner, if work is not completed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dsn