IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2611 of 2006(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. BIJU THOMAS, S/O.C.J.THOMAS, AGED 26 YEARS, BOREWELL CONTRACTOR, JALADHARA BOREWELLS, RESIDING AT CHARAMTHOTTIYIL, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. P.S.SUNIMON, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 36 YEARS, BOREWELL CONTRACTOR, PUTHENPURAKKAL BOREWELL, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURAKKAL, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. T.V.PAUL, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 85 YEARS, GOVT. CONTRACTOR, RESIDING AT THANTHALAKKATTU VEEDU, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.P.JNANASEKHARAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT, WATER RESOURCES(GM) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR,, GROUND WATER DIRECTORATE, JALAVIJNANA BHAVAN, AMBALAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.2611/2006-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING ALONG WITH DECISION DTD. 15/03/2004. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GWDI/828/2003 DTD. 19/03/2004 BY THE R.3. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DTD. 28/04/2004 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GWD1/828/2003 DTD. 19/11/2004. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONERS DTD. 21/03/2005 BEFORE THE HON'BLE REVENUE MINISTER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 25/05/2005 BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.2611 OF 2006 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners submit that they are registered borewell contractors. It is seen that following the severe drought that was prevailing in the State during 2004, emergency measures were taken by the Government for providing water to the drought-hit areas. One of the step implemented was to dig borewells and erecting hand pumps. It is stated that as part of the Scheme, in the Idukki District, petitioners were awarded work of digging borewells and they started work on 20.3.2004. 2. It is stated that by Exts.P2 and P3, sites were identified by the third respondent and the sites mentioned in Exts.P2 and P3 were alloted to the petitioners. They completed the work and the final bill in relation to the sites mentioned in Ext.P2 was submitted on 12.4.2004. Similarly, the final bill in relation to the sites mentioned in Ext.P3 was submitted on 5.5.2004. It is stated that by Ext.P4 and also by a subsequent demand draft, only part payments were made to the Wpc 2611/2006 2 petitioners 2 and 3 and no payment was made to the first petitioner. As at present, petitioners submit that an amount of Rs.2,70,248/- is due to the first petitioner, Rs.1,55,202/- to the second petitioner and Rs.1,88,215/- is due to the third petitioner. Representations made for payment of aforesaid amounts did not yield any result. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. In the affidavit, the fact that the contract was awarded, sites were identified by the third respondent and the petitioners executed the work under the supervision of the third respondent, are not in dispute. It is stated that a total number of 29 works were thus awarded and executed by the petitioners and that out of the 29 works, amount in respect of 11 sites was paid by the District Collector. In so far as the remaining sites are concerned, it is stated that although payment was recommended, amount was not disbursed by the District Collector. The reason according to the second respondent is that in some cases, the wells have gone dry and in some cases, installation of pumps were not possible. It is stated that such cases have been treated as incomplete works and for Wpc 2611/2006 3 incomplete works, District Collector did not approve or disburse payment. 4. The learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions from the District Collector which also supports the view of the statements made by the second respondent in the counter affidavit. According to the District Collector, non payment was due to the reason that the wells have gone dry and in some cases, installation of the pumps was rendered impossible. It is stated that it was therefore that the works were treated as incomplete and hence he did not disburse the amount based on the bills submitted by the petitioners. In such a situation, if the wells have gone dry or for technical reasons, pumps could not be installed, Contractors like the petitioners cannot be faulted. If at all it was due to any negligence or latches on the part of the officials of the third respondent or any other department, it is open to the authorities to take appropriate action against such erring officials. However, it is no reason to withhold payments to the petitioners who had executed the work and their bills should be paid. 5. In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of directing that Wpc 2611/2006 4 the respondent should pay the amounts that are due to the petitioners, whih are also recommended to the District Collector. The District Collector shall disburse the necessary funds for settlement of the claim made by the petitioners. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE lgk