IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 10837 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.I. NALINAKSHAN, S/O.LATE SRI.PMC NAIR CONTRACTOR,CHITHRA, P.O.KOTTAMPARAMBA KOZHIKODE-673 008. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPT; GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT) INDIAN ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION CORPORATION BUILDINGS, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,SC,KOZHIKODE CORP FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C) No. 10837 of 2008-M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he had undertaken works under the third respondent Corporation on contract basis and that the same was completed to the satisfaction of the Corporation, way back in February, 2006. It is stated that despite having satisfactorily completed the contract works his final bills are not so far been paid by the Corporation. In view of this, this writ petition has been filed for directing the Corporation to settle the bills for the works undertaken as per Ext.P1 by the petitioner. 2. On behalf of the third respondent, the Standing Counsel appeared on notice and on instructions it is submitted that during the course of the local audit, some objections were raised and although these objections were satisfactorily explained by the third respondent, the second respondent is yet to finalise the matter and only thereafter the Corporation will be able to make payment to the petitioner. 3. I have considered the submission made. The audit objection cannot be a reason for withholding the payment forever and it is incumbent on the authorities to finalise the audit on an W.P.(C).No.10837/2008-M -: 2 :- expeditious basis. In this case, the inordinate delay has already been caused and hence, it is only proper that the second respondent is directed to complete the audit within the time frame. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the second respondent shall finalise the audit atleast in relation to the works undertaken by the petitioner, expeditiously and at any rate, within eight weeks on production of a copy of this judgment and thereafter, depending upon the same, the third respondent shall settle the bill of the petitioner, without any further delay. 5. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance. 6. Though the learned counsel has submitted that in view of the inordinate delay that has already been caused petitioner is entitled to be awarded interest, I do not think it proper for this Court to adjudicate on this liability in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This claim of the petitioner is left open to be urged by him in appropriate proceedings. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge ms