IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 35779 of 2008(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.B. KABEER KHAN, POTTAYIKANDATHIL HOUSE, NEAR N.G.O. QUARTERS, MUVATTUPUZHA.P.O, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.P.B.SURESH KUMAR MR.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS AND BRIDGES),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, ROADS DIVISON, KASARAGOD. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.SALIM P.A. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 35779/2008-H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 01/04/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 22/02/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 35779 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th August, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is a Government contractor, was awarded the work of transporting bulk bitumen from the Cochin Refineries Ltd., to various work sites coming within the jurisdiction of the 4th respondent. In the course of execution of the work as per the direction issued by the 4th respondent, the petitioner undertook additional transporting work than what have been specified in the agreement and he was informed by the 4th respondent that he had already obtained sanction of revised estimate in that regard. But, after the work was executed by the petitioner, the 4th respondent took the stand that he is yet to get revised estimate sanctioned by the appropriate authorities and unless revised estimate is sanctioned, payment cannot be made to the petitioner. The work was completed as early as in the month of June, 2007 and the petitioner is yet to receive the money for the additional work done by him as directed by the 4th respondent. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief: “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to disburse the amounts payable to the petitioner for the entire work executed pursuant to Ext. P1 work order including the amount covered by the part bills registered as CC 47/07 dated 20-6-2007 and CC 49/07-08 dated 25-6-2007 within a time limit to be prescribed by this Honourable Court.” 2. On 20-8-2009, I passed the following interim order: “The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that after having asked him to transport bitumen in excess of the quantity for which a contract has been entered into, the remuneration for the excess work done is not being paid to the petitioner, on the ground that the revised estimate for the excess work has not been W.P.C. No. 35779/08 -: 2 :- sanctioned. The fact that the petitioner has done additional work is not disputed before me. Only contention is that revised estimate for the additional work has not been sanctioned. I do not think that this is a ground for denying payment to the petitioner for the work done. If the revised estimate has to be sanctioned, it is for the respondents to get it appropriately sanctioned. They cannot deny payment to the petitioner on that ground alone. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader shall get instructions from the respondents as to within what time the respondents can pay the amounts due to the petitioner for the extra work admittedly done by him. Post on 27-8-2009. Failing which this Court will fix a period for such payment.” 3. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the Government would require at least one more month's time to consider the question of sanction of revised estimate itself. I am of opinion that whether the Government grants sanction for revised estimate or not, insofar as the petitioner had undertaken the additional work on the direction of the 4th respondent, the respondents are bound to pay for the work done by him. 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. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to see that the amounts due to the petitioner are paid as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within the outer limit of three months from today. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/