IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20845 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GEORGE KURUVILA, SANKARAMANGALAM, ERAVIPEROOR P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D.(ROADS AND BRIDGES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, KOTTAYAM. 4. P.T.THOMAS, PURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, PADINJATTUMBHAGOM KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).20845/2009 ....................... Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a contractor engaged in the works of the Public Works Department. One of them was a repair work of the Mundakayam – Koruthodu Mookenpetty road and work of the link road connecting M.G.Road and Kanjikuzhi and Manorama road in Kottayam during February, 2009. Bills for the above mentioned works were submitted and passed as evidenced by Ext.P1. Ext.P2 cheque for an amount of Rs.68,83,957/- was issued from the Kottayam District Treasury. On presentation, payment was declined on the ground that there is an attachment by a Civil Court. On enquiry, petitioner came to know that the attachment is at the instance of the 4th respondent, in O.S.No.141/2001 and 149/2002 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Kottayam, for an amount of Rs.91,310/- and Rs.1,78,397/- respectively. 2. Petitioner contends that he is not a debtor to the 4th respondent and therefore, an attachment at the instance of the 4th respondent should not stand in the way of the W.P.(C).20845/09 2 petitioner receiving the amount due to him from the Government. In spite of service of notice from this Court, there is no appearance for the 4th respondent. The averments made by the petitioner as regards the 4th respondent shall therefore, be treated as uncontroverted. In these circumstances, the amount due to the petitioner by way of Ext.P2 shall be disbursed without reference to Exts.P3 and P3(a) provided there is no other factor which stands in the way of such disbursal. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs