IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3258 of 2010(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.V.SHALU, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.UNNI, RESIDING AT THOTTIVALAPPIL HOUSE, KALADI P.O., MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANU VILSAN SRI.P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN SRI.P.G.SURESH SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.M.R.VIBIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY, KALADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALADI P.O., MALAPPURAM. 2. KALADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALADI P.O., MALAPPURAM. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.3258 of 2010 (F) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a contractor. According to him, he was awarded the work of Poochamkunnu Cherunnapuram Road Construction Project. Ext.P1 is the agreement executed between himself and the 1st respondent in this behalf. The petitioner claims to have executed the work and submitted Ext.P2 bill as early as on 26/03/2009. According to him, he ought to have been paid the amount due within three months of submission of the bill. Even now payment has not been made. He says that he claimed the amount due by issuing Ext.P3 notice to which Ext.P5 reply was given disputing his liability. It is stated that thereafter, his endeavor to get payment of the amount due did not succeed. Finally, Ext.P8 legal notice was issued, to which Ext.P10 reply is given disputing his eligibility. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed. 2. A reading of Exts.P5 & P10 referred to above show that WP(C) No.3258/2010 -2- according to the 1st respondent, the petitioner did not execute the work in full as claimed by him. It was therefore that they refused to make the payment of the aforesaid claim. However in Ext.P10, after stating all that, the 1st respondent has concluded by saying that after receipt of a statement from the Engineer and verifying the same, payment for the work done by the petitioner will be released. Therefore, at least, the respondent Panchayat is agreeing to consider the claim of the petitioner, but however is awaiting for the statement of the Engineer to verify the same. In these circumstances, this Court will not be justified in directing the 1st respondent to make payment, but however fairness requires that the 1st respondent should expedite the report of the Engineer, complete the verification process and settle the claim of the petitioner. 3. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the 1st respondent will expedite the report of the Engineer and verify the same and finalise the claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. WP(C) No.3258/2010 -3- Needless to say that this Court has not decided the claim of the petitioner on merits, and it will be open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies, if he is aggrieved by the final decision that is to be taken by the 1st respondent. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg