IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 16656 of 2010(F) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.V. BABY, AGED 58, S/O. SIMON VARGHESE, PERICKAMATTATHIL HOUSE, EZHAKKARANAD (S) P.O, PUTHENCRUZ VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H. CIRCLE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. IDUKK DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, IDUKKI. ADV. MR.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY FOR R-3 MRS.N.SANTHA FOR R-3 MR.S.A.ANAND FOR R-3 MR.PETER JOSE CHRISTO FOR R-3 MR.M.DINESH, SC, KWA FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16656 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AGREEMENT NO.33/2009- 10/SE/PHC/MUPA DTD 27.10.2009. EXT.P2; COPY OF THE ACCEPTED SCHEDULE. EXT.P3; COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD 9.5.2010. EXT.P4; COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 3.5.2010. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 30.3.2010. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE (TENDER NO.95/2008-09). EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A2-2319/09 DTD 8.6.2010 OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H. DIVISINON, THODUPUZHA. EXT.R2(c): COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE DTD 09.05.2010 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H. DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THODUPUZHA. EXT.R2(d): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.SE/PHC/MVPA/D5-925/2008 DTD 12.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, IDUKKI. EXT.R2(e): COPY OF THE G.W.D. FORM NO.83 (SPECIAL CONDITION). EXT.R2(f): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY VIDE KWA/HO/WS2/257/2009 DTD 10.07.2009. EXT.R2(g): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.SE/PHC/MPA/D5-1925/2008 DATED 29.7.2009 SENT BY SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TO THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT. EXT.R2(h): COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 25.9.2009 SENT BY SECRETARY, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT TO THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER. EXT.R2(i): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KWA/CE/CR/TDPA/1156/08 DTD 22.03.2008 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CR), KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOCHI TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.16656 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has executed certain work on behalf of the Kerala Water Authority in accordance with the agreement between the petitioner and the first respondent. The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is that the amount due to the petitioner for the work done by the petitioner is not being paid to the petitioner. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, wherein the Water Authority has taken the contention that the work is not yet complete. They would also contend that they can pay the admitted amount also only after getting funds from the NABARD through the third respondent District Panchayat. According to them, therefore, the petitioner should wait till the funds are provided by the NABARD through the District Panchayat. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. May W.P.(c)No.16656/10 2 be the work is as per a project sponsored by the NABARD and the third respondent Panchayat, but it remains a fact that the agreement is between the petitioner and the first respondent Water Authority. It is pursuant to the notification inviting tenders issued by the first respondent that the petitioner has responded and he was awarded the work. Therefore, as far as the petitioner is concerned, he cannot be directed to run after others or wait till others provide funds to the Water Authority, to get the money for the work done by him. Since the contract is between the petitioner and the first respondent, the terms of the contract has to be complied with by the petitioner and the first respondent not others. The petitioner has done the work by spending money from his own pocket. As per the agreement, it was the responsibility of the first respondent to pay the amount due to the petitioner for the work done by him As such the first respondent is liable to pay the money due to the petitioner for the contract. In the above circumstances, there would be a direction to the first respondent to pay the admitted amount to the petitioner for the work done by him as expeditiously as W.P.(c)No.16656/10 3 possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.16656/10 4