IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 2191 of 2009(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.I.WILSON, PALLIPPADAN HOUSE, IST MILE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, ASAMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ASAMANNOOR, ODAKKALY, ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, L.S.G. (IW) D.SUB DIVISION, KOOVAPPADY BLOCK PANCHAYATH, KURUPPAMPADY PO. ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH FOR R1 SRI.V.V.RAJA FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC 2191/2009) PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY R1 DTD. 21.6.2005. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL BILL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTs DT. 28.7.2005 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST BY THE PETITIONER TO R1 DT. 19.3.2008. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE SERVED ON R1 DT. 26.11.2008. lgk THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 2191 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JULY, 2009 JUDGMENT After hearing the parties on 8.7.2009, the following order was minuted and matter was listed after two weeks. “First respondent panchayat does not dispute that the petitioner carried out the work in question and also was paid the amounts except those retained as retention amounts. Merely on the ground that the project was relatable to the 10th plan, this court does not find any sustainable reason for the authorities to refuse release of the retention amounts, though the application for release of such amounts was made only in 2008. The first respondent states that the District Planning Committee has refused to grant approval. The first respondent will place on record the communication of the District Planning Committee in that regard so that the petitioner can seek impleadment of that authority. Post after two weeks.” 2. Having considered the materials on record including the Wpc 2191 of 2009 2 statement of the first respondent, I do not find any ground for the District Planning Committee or the panchayat to refuse to release the amounts retained from the petitioner. It is hence ordered that the amounts retained from the petitioner would be released within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/23/7