IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 26744 of 2008(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- BINU.P.RAJAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.RAJAPPAN, RESIDING AT VALASSERIL HOUSE, MANNATHOOR, THIRUMARADE VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVOCATES MR.A.T.ANILKUMAR MR.P.DALBI EMMANUAL RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MVIP, DIVISION NO.II, KOOTHATTUKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION AN ENQUIRY, KOCHI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26744 of 2008(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO. 25/EE/MVIP-11/2003-2004 DATED 23.01.2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT DATED 31.08.2005 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO. B5-1729/2003 DATED 03.09.2004 OF THIRUMARADY PUNCHA CONSTRUCTION WORK. EXT.P4 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 1729/03 DATED 27.01.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY BOND DATED 27.01.2006 EXECUTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.3.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26744 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he was awarded the work of MVIP improvements to Chakkappady- Kamalamattom Link Road. An amount of Rs.1,66,323/- due to petitioner’s work pursuant to Exhibit P3 was withheld for the reason that a vigilance enquiry was going on against the petitioner. 2. It is now submitted by the learned Government pleader that vigilance enquiry has been completed and report has been submitted on 5/1/2009. It is stated that the report does not recommend any action against the petitioner. If that be so, there is absolutely no justification for any further delay in paying the amounts that are due to the petitioner. 3. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to release the amount due to the petitioner and withheld, as is seen in Exhibit P5. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm