IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 35152 of 2009(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SILPI CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS, EXPRESS ESTATE FLAT-7-F, KALOOR, KOCHI-17, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BERTHALO FERNANDEZ F., AGED 48, S/O. A.FRANCIS, RESIDING AT EXPRESS ESTATE, FLAT 7-F, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. MR.BOBBY MATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560. 2. THE UNIVERSITY ENGINEER, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J ================== W.P(C) No.35152 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a partnership firm who is engaged in civil contract works with the State Government as per agreement dated 27/08/1998 for the work of construction of Senate Hall and Auditorium in the University Campus at Athirampuzha. Ext.P2 is the copy of the agreement. The work had to be completed within 20 months from the date of agreement. 2. It is a case of the petitioner that, the shortage of funds due to the non allocation of fund in the budget, petitioner could not complete the work and as per the earlier directions issued by the University. The work was stopped in November 2000. The copies of the letters have been produced as Ext.P5 to P7. 3. Ext.P9 is the letter submitted by the petitioner to provide adequate terms and condition to reconstruct the -2- W.P(C) No.35152 of 2009 work. Ext.P10 is the copy of proceedings issued by the Syndicate which shows the deliberations of the Syndicate of the University, where the issue was discussed. The Syndicate of the University issued Ext.P10 proceedings, not to proceed with the work because of the want of more funds and for using the completed construction for other purposes. 4. The main pray of this writ petition is for a direction to the University to pay retention amount, security amount etc., with interest and apart from the payments, the value of the works done after the last part bill and before the cessation of work in 2000. 5. The respondents have filed the statements in answer to the grievances made in the writ petition. One of the dispute raised by the parties regarding the measurements taken, is a case of the petitioner, that the measurements was taken without notice to him. It is also stated that the same was not accepted by him, in the -3- W.P(C) No.35152 of 2009 statement in Para.8, that if there is any measurements which is not included in the bill and Director is convinced of the same and fresh measurements shall be taken in the presence of the petitioner. Necessary directions have been issued to the Engineer to prepare the new bill. 6. According to the University, only 21% of the work had been completed till now. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the admitted amount for the work have already been forwarded and directed the University to disburse this amount. Ext.P11 is the copy of the representation submitted by the petitioner in this regard. 8. The writ petition is dismissed with the following directions: The respondents will consider the Ext.P11 representation of the petitioner and conduct fresh measurements in the presence of the petitioner, if requires, expeditiously. It will be upon with a prior notice to the -4- W.P(C) No.35152 of 2009 petitioner, with regard to the claim of the petitioner for all the work done by him and it is admitted by the respondents. The respondents will take appropriate action to release the payment within a period of two months. All other contentions are left open. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE nl