IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 194 of 2008(W) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.CHANDRADASAN, S/O.APPUTTY, AGED 63, VISWAHINDU BHAVAN, CHALAPPURAM, CALICUT-2. BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUNNAMKULAM P.O., TRICHUR DT. 2. MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, KUNNAMKULAM P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. MR.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, SC FOR R1. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.194 of 2008 (W) -------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a contractor, who was awarded the work of construction of a bus terminal cum shopping complex by the 1st respondent. Agreement is dated 19/11/2004, and the period for the completion of the work was agreed to be two years. According to the petitioner, due to the fault of the Municipality, the work had to be stopped. In this writ petition what he claims is that going by Ext.P12, the Municipality itself has assessed that the petitioner has executed the work valued at Rs.52,04,516/- and that as against this, he was paid only Rs.44,31,774/-, and that therefore, the Municipality should be directed to release the differential amount of Rs.7,72,742/-. 2. The Municipality resisted the claim of the petitioner. According to the Municipality, although, the petitioner was awarded the work, which he ought to have been completed within two years from the date of Ext.P1, the petitioner did not complete the work and abandoned the same. It is stated that as a result thereof, the Municipality has incurred a huge loss, which has been estimated at WP(C) No.194/2008 -2- Rs.8,93,00,000/-. It is stated that a resolution has been passed by the Municipality to recover the aforesaid loss from the petitioner and that by notice dated 17/08/2009, the payment has already been demanded. It is stated that though the quantity of the work executed by the petitioner has been valued, in view of the claim against the petitioner, the Municipality is not liable to make payment of any amount to him. 3. In a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless the liability is undisputed, this Court will not be justified in directing payment. Although, this appears to be a case where the petitioner has done some portion of the work, the value of which has been assessed by the Municipality, the Municipality has a claim against the petitioner for a huge sum. Therefore, the liability is seriously disputed and in such circumstances, this Court will not be justified in entering into the merits of the controversy and no order can be passed as sought for in this writ petition. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his claim against the respondents in accordance with law, this writ petition is disposed of. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg