IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 RP.No. 341 of 2009(V) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21605/2008 Dated 18/11/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------------------------------ KOZHIKODE CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDING, KOZHIKODE. BY MR.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ K.P.CHANDRADASAN,GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, VISWA HINDU BHAVAN, CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY MR.SALIL NARAYANAN, ADVOCATE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ R.P.NO.341 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C)No.21605 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009 ORDER The respondent Corporation in the writ petition seeks review of my judgment dated 18.11.2008, wherein I directed the Corporation to pay to the petitioner in the writ petition the balance amount due to the petitioner for the work done by him. Now the review petition proceeds on the basis that they agreed to pay the amount on the assumption that the Government would give them sanction for payment for the additional items of work done by the petitioner at the rates agreed to between the petitioner and the Corporation. But unfortunately, by Annexure-1 order, the Government has refused sanction and therefore the judgment is liable to be reviewed is the contention raised in the review petition. 2. I do not think that, that is a ground for review of my judgment. Admittedly, the petitioner agreed to do the additional work on specific terms and conditions, which were accepted by R.P.No.341/09 2 the Corporation. If the Corporation had to obtain sanction from the Government for getting the work on those conditions, they should have made the sanction from the Government as a condition for the payment for additional work done by the petitioner, which they have not done. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner has done the additional work also to the satisfaction of the respondent Corporation. The contract is between the petitioner and the Corporation and not with the Government. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied payment on the ground that the Corporation should have obtained sanction from the Government which they had not. As far as the contract is between the petitioner and the Corporation, when the petitioner has fulfilled his part of the contract, the Corporation is bound to pay him for the work done by him. Therefore, there is no merit in the review petition. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd R.P.No.341/09 3