IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25031 of 2006(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- U.P. USMAN, PROPRIETOR, NEW STAR LIGHT AND SOUND, TANUR. BY ADV. MR.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 3. T. VINAYA DAS, (CONVENER, LIGHT AND SOUND KERALA STATE SCHOOL SCIENCE MATHS AND WORK EXPERIENCE FAIR 2001-02 & CONVENER STAGE AND PANTHAL 45TH STATE YOUTH FESTIVAL), RESIDING AT ABHILASH NILAYAM, WANDOOR P.O., PERINTHALMANNA. 4. A.K. SAINUDDIN, (CONVENER, STAGE AND PANTHAL KERALA STATE SCHOOL SCIENCE MATHS AND WORK EXPERIENCE FAIR 2001-02) RESIDING AT POOVADU, PONMALA P.O., MALAPPURAM. 5. GEORGE KOLATHOOR, (CONVENER, LIGHT AND SOUTH 45TH STATE YOUTH FESTIVAL), RESIDING AT SNEEHA, NEAR POLY HOSTEL, ANGADIPURAM P.O., PERINTHALMANNA. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V. TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 25031/2006-E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 25/12/2004. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED FROM THE CONVENER STAGE AND PANTHAL TO THE GENERAL CONVENER 45TH STATE SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL DATED 16/01/2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE CONVENER LIGHT AND SOUND TO THE GENERL CONVENER 45TH STATE SCHOOL YOUTH FESTIVAL DATED 16/01/2005. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MINSTER FOR EDUCATION WITH COPY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTED 05/09/2002. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LAWYERS NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT WHO BEING THE CONVENER STAGE AND PANTHL OF 45TH STATE YOUTH FESTIVAL DATED 08/05/2006. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LAWYERS NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT WHO BEING THE CONVENER LIGHT AND SOUND OF KERALA STATE SCHOOL SCIENCE AND MATHS FAIR, 2001-02 DATED 08/05/2006. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LAWYERS NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT WHO BEING THE CONVENER LIGHT AND SOUND OF 45TH STATE YOUTH FESTIVAL DATED 10/05/2006. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LWYERS NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WHO BEING THE CONVENER STAGE AND PANTHAL OF KERALA SCHOOL SCIENCE MATHS FAIR, 2001-02 DATED 10/05/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 25031 Of 2006 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court claiming various amounts stated as due from the respondents in respect of the additional works carried out by him for setting up the Stage and Panthal and for providing light and sound for the State School Youth Festival held during 2004 – 2005 and for the State School Science Fair held during 2001 – 2002. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the first and second respondents had invited quotations for installing the light and sound systems and for erecting stage and panthal for the above programmes. On coming out successful in the bid, the quotation submitted by the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner completed the works and submitted the bills. However, in the course of events, the convener had given instructions to perform some additional works for conducting the State Youth Festival and the Science Fair in an effective and successful manner; which were actually not included in the tender called for. On the basis of the assurance given by the convener that the petitioner would be paid for the additional work at the same rate as specified in the tender, the petitioner carried out the entire work to the satisfaction WPC No. 25031 of 2006 : 2 : of the authorities and thereafter submitted the bills for the additional works, which were verified and recommended by the concerned conveners as evident from Ext. P2 and Ext.P3. 3. In spite of the assurance and undertaking given by the conveners and despite the satisfaction recorded by the Deputy Director of Education (second respondent) as evident from Ex.P2 and P3, the payment in respect of the additional work was not released by the respondents, which made the petitioner to file several representations and even to send a lawyer's notice. All the demands having been turned futile, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing above petition seeking for appropriate direction to be given to the respondents to release the payments. 4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the liability to pay the amount claimed in respect of additional works stating that the budget provision for the stage and panthal was Rs.5,60,000/- and in respect of the light and sound was Rs.4,58,000/-, though the amount under the latter head was subsequently revised as Rs.5,08,000/-. Referring to Ext.P1 itself the said respondent submits that if at all any additional work was being entrusted, the Director had to approve the same before starting the work, particularly, since the fund for conducting festival/programme had been granted by the first WPC No. 25031 of 2006 : 3 : respondent, based on the approved budget provision. It is also stated that the claim of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.2,90,405/- for stage and panthal and Rs.2,63,502/- for light and sound, in addition to the budgetary provision for the youth festival held in 2004 – 2005 and similarly Rs. 1,17,270/- for light and sound and Rs. 64,772/- for panthal work in respect to the Science Fair are not correct or sustainable stating that the sub-committee convener had no power to entrust the work to the contractor without approval of the general committee or the Director of Public Instructions. 5. On going through the admitted facts and figures, it is very much clear that petitioner seeks to enforce his rights arising out of a contract which is not permissible by invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, in view of the settled position of law. This is more so when the right of the petitioner for claiming the amount under different heads in respect of the additional works are vehementally denied by the respondents for want of necessary sanction and also for being beyond the budgetary provision allocated. The extent of additional work performed by the petitioner, whether there was proper sanction, whether it was within the terms and conditions stipulated and agreed etc. are the matters to be considered and decided only on the basis of evidence to be adduced before the competent Civil Court. WPC No. 25031 of 2006 : 4 : 6. In the above facts and circumstances, interference is declined in the above writ petition, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the Government or such other appropriate forum for redressing his grievance, if any. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd