IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 11390 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ABY STEPHEN, PROPRIETOR M/S.EBENEZER FURNITURE MART, 1/208 MUNDUKOTTACKAL BUILDING, RANNY P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 672. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RANNY - PERUNAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY RANNY PERUNAD P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689711 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEF FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.11390 of 2008 ------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JULY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner responded to a quotation, sought for by the first respondent Grama Panchayat, for supply of sewing machines and other accessories to the dress manufacturing unit run by the first respondent Panchayat under a self employment scheme for members of Scheduled Caste. 2. The petitioner's quotation was accepted by the first respondent and subsequently the petitioner had supplied four numbers of sewing machiners, two locking machiners, two cutting tables, two almirahs, etc. for a price of Rs.55,000/- . Aggrieved by the non- disbursal of the amount, this Writ Petition has been filed. 3. The petitioner had filed Exhibit P2 and P3 representations and later a lawyer notice was also sent to the first respondent. He was given a reply as per Exhibit P5 stating that the matter is under scrutiny and the amount would be paid after verification and sanction from higher authorities. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. W.P.(C)No.11390/08 -2- 5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner has executed the work by supplying the machines, etc. The total amount due is Rs.55,000/- and going by the procedures, if the amount exceeds Rs.20,000/-, a public advertisement was necessary for inviting quotation. It is submitted that no objection has been raised from any quarters with regard to the same also. Even if no such procedure was adopted, the petitioner cannot be blamed for not issuing a public advertisement and it will not affect his rights as the supplies have been made. As on today, none has raised any objection also. Therefore the apprehension raised cannot go against the claim raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. He is entitled to be paid the said amount. 6. In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the first respondent to effect payment of the actual amount due to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn