IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 26702 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- JOHN BOSCO,S/O.JOSE,VADAKETHALA KATTILAKARAN HOUSE,KARAMUCK VILLAGE, (PO) KANDASSAMKADAVU,THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE PRINCIPAL,GOVT.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,THANNIAM,THRISSUR DIST. 2. THE SECRETARY,DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, AYYANTHOLE (PO),THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DIRECTOR ,HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.26702/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.FIN.C2/1388/07-08/XII FC/HSE DT.25.1.2008 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT 18.2.2009 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COMMUNICATION DT 9.8.2010 OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, THRISSUR GIVING APPROVAL OF THE PETITIONER'S WORK TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 LAKHS. EXT.P4: COMMUNICATION DT 29.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CONVEYING THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK by the PETITIONER FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DT 10.8.2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT 13.8.2010 GIVEN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 26702 OF 2010 (K) ===================== Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Non payment of the amount due to the petitioner is what is complained of in this writ petition. 2. It is submitted by both sides that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, amount due has been paid. 3. However, counsel for the petitioner complains that due to the delay in payment, he is entitled to be paid interest. In this writ petition, I am not persuaded to pass any such order, but however, if the petitioner has such a claim, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedies in appropriate proceedings. Writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp