IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29042 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- T.I.RAJU, AGED 58 YEARS, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, S/O.LATE T.E.ITHAPPIRI, THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, KUSUMAGIRI P.O.,KOCHI-30 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.JOSE SMT.TESSY JOSE RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REPRESENTD BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY P.H.CIRCLE MALAPPURAMBA KOZHIKODE-673009 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.H.DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.O.SUKAPURAM,EDAPPAL-679576 SRI.M.DINESH, SC, KWA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 29122 OF 2010 ,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 29042 & 29122 OF 2010 ========================== Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners in these writ petitions are contractors. The Kerala Water Authority issued work orders to the petitioners awarding certain deposit works on behalf of KSTP (The Kerala State Transport Project). Accordingly agreement was entered into between the Kerala Water Authority and the petitioners. As per the agreement, the Kerala Water Authority has the responsibility of paying the bills of the petitioners. On the basis of the work order and the agreements, petitioners executed the work and have completed the same to the satisfaction of Kerala Water Authority, which fact is not in dispute. 2. Petitioner in WP(C) No. 29122/10 completed the work on 10/6/2009 and the petitioner in WP(C) No.29042/10 completed the work on 21/8/2009. An amount of Rs.51,01,041/- is due to the petitioner in WP(C) No.29122/10 and Rs.43,67,748/- is due to the petitioner in WP(C) No.29042/10. Although these facts are also undisputed, despite demands, payments have not been made. It is with this complaint the writ petitions have been filed. 3. On behalf of the Kerala Water Authority, learned WPC No. 29042 & 29122 OF 2010 :2 : standing counsel submits that the works in question were deposit works of the KSTP and that in terms of the agreement between the KSTP and the Kerala Water Authority, the KSTP is to pay the full amount to Kerala Water Authority. It is stated that on receipt of the bills from the petitioners, the work was measured and after verification, the bills have been sent to the KSTP on 30/9/10 and that the KSTP has been requested to disburse the balance amount of Rs.116 lakhs to the Kerala Water Authority. It is stated that it is due to the non payment of the said sum by the KSTP that the payment due to the petitioners could not be settled. On this basis, counsel contends that the Water Authority cannot be faulted for the delay that has been caused. 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioners contradicts the submissions made on behalf of the Kerala Water Authority by contending that in terms of the agreement between the parties responsibility of settling the bills of the petitioners is that of the Water Authority. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners have executed the work utilising borrowed capital and that because of the inordinate delay, petitioners are now saddled with the WPC No. 29042 & 29122 OF 2010 :3 : liability to pay interest to the financial institutions for which also Water Authority should be held liable. 5. The fact that the petitioners have executed the work to the satisfaction of the Kerala Water Authority and that this was based on the agreement between the parties is not in dispute. The amount due to the petitioners is also undisputed. That in terms of the agreement between the parties, the Water Authority is liable for paying the dues of the petitioners is also an undisputed fact. In such circumstances, even if it is true that the KSTP has not settled the dues of the Kerala Water Authority, the Water Authority cannot get itself exonerated of its liability for making payments to the petitioners. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Kerala Water Authority to settle the dues of the petitioners and Water Authority cannot avoid that responsibility. 6. In view of the above and also taking note of the request made by the counsel for the Kerala Water Authority for a longer period for payment, I direct that 50% of the amount due to the respective petitioners shall be paid within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment and the balance 50% shall be paid within WPC No. 29042 & 29122 OF 2010 :4 : four weeks thereafter. 7. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp