IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 24067 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.ANIL FERNANDEZ, SON OF ANTONY FERNANDEZ, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT ROSE VILLA, KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR. P.B.SURESH KUMAR MR. K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT(ROADS AND BRIDGES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS AND BRIDGES, SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.K. ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P. (C) No. 24067 OF 2010 Appendix EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BEARING NO. 18 /EEP/2005 - 06 ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED 20.06.2005 EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BEARING NO. 19/EEP/2005-06 ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED 24.06.2005 EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT IN CONNECTION WITH WORK REFERRED TO IN EXHIBIT P1 DATED 09.03.2007 EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK REFERRED TO IN EXHIBIT P2 DATED 09.03.2007 EXHIBIT P5 :TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO. 35779 OF 2008 DATED 28.08.2009 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 24067 OF 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 16th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is a Government contractor, has executed certain works for transportation of Bitumen from Cochin Refinery to various works sites under the 5th respondent, pursuant to Exts. P1 and P2. In the course of execution of such works, it is said that, some additional quantity, as specified in the agreement, had also been lifted so as to meet the requirement of the 5th respondent. After completing the works, the petitioner submitted the bills, but the respondents were reluctant to honour the same in respect of the excess works, which actually constitutes a balance sum of ` 9,43,074/- in respect of the works under Ext. P1 and a sum ` 3,12,858/- in respect of Ext.P2. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no ryme or reason for delaying the payments. especially when the petitioner has completed the works to the satisfaction of all concerned. 3. The third respondent has filed a statement dated 4th February 2011, virtually conceding the factual points as narrated in the writ petition. However, it is stated in the said statement that, the revised W.P. (C) No. 24067 of 2010 : 2 : estimates prepared by Executive Engineer, Roads Division, Pathanamthitta have already been forwarded to the Government for sanction on 04.10.2010 It is also stated that, the balance amount will be released to the petitioner on receipt of sanction of the revised estimates as above. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the stand taken by the respondents is quite arbitrary in all respects, in so far as there is absolutely no averment as to any dissatisfaction or as to the eligibility of the petitioner, but for the alleged necessity to obtain sanction of the revised estimates, which is purely an internal affair or administrative exercise. Reliance is also sought to be placed on Ext. P5 decision rendered by this Court in a similar circumstance, wherein it has been observed as follows : “Therefore, I do not think that the respondents can ask the petitioner to wait indefinitely for payment for the work done. The sanction of additional estimate is an internal matter among the respondents, which cannot affect the right of the petitioner to get payment for the work admittedly done by him as directed by the 4th respondent, especially since there is no allegation of any malpractice against the petitioner.” 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that a similar direction, as given in Ext. P5, has to be given in the present case well. W.P. (C) No. 24067 of 2010 : 3 : Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to see that the balance amount due to the petitioner is paid, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from today. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd