IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11345 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ NANDAKUMAR.K.M. S/O. BALAN NAIR, RADHALAYAM, MANATHANA AMSOM PERAVOOR DESOM, PERAVOOR P.O., THALASSERY KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 673 BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL ADMINISTRATIION (POLITICAL) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLELCTORATE, KANNUR. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, BUILDINGS AND LOCAL WORKS PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. BUILDING DIVISION, KANNUR. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. BUILDING SUB DIVISION, IRITY, KANNUR. 6. KERALA PRADESH CONGRESS COMMITTEE (I) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, REMESH CHENNITHALA INDIRA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 11345/2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 LETTER DT. 15-4-2006. EXT.P2 BILL DATED 30-5-2006. EXT.P3 REPRESENTATION DT. 10-12-2007. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 11345 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd September, 2008. J U D G M E N T In W.P(C) No. 15003/2008, I passed the following judgment: “The petitioner took on contract the work of construction of stage, barricades and providing lighting and sound for the meeting in connection with the visit of the Prime Minister of India and the President of the All India Congress Committee at Victoria College, Palakkad. The work was of an emergent nature. The petitioner is stated to have completed the same. The petitioner complains that the amounts due to the extent of Rs. 9,34,554/- have not been paid to the petitioner yet, although the work was completed in 2006. The petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the respondents 1 to 5 to disburse the said amount to the petitioner. The contention of the Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 is that the work was undertaken on behalf of the 6th respondent and therefore the 6th respondent to pay the amount. But admittedly, the contract is between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 5. That being so, the petitioner cannot be directed to go after 6th respondent with whom the petitioner has no privity of contract, for the amount. If the respondents 1 to 5 have a case that the 6th respondent is to pay the same, it is for the respondents 1 to 5 to realise it from the 6th respondent for which the petitioner cannot be asked to wait. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents 1 to 5 to see that the amounts due to the petitioner for the above said work is paid within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 2. It is not disputed before me that the facts of this case are identical to the fact of that case. In the above circumstances, following that judgment, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondents 1 to 5 to see that the amounts due to the petitioner for the work he has executed are paid within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/