IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26980 of 2007(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL RUSSAK, CEMA SHOPPE, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ASP.KURUP SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA. 2. THE SECRETARY, MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA. ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 26980 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd April, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a contractor for supply of electrical goods to the Mavelikkara Municipality . The petitioner supplied the goods. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner has not been paid the bill amounts due to the petitioner for such supply as per Exts.P2 and P3. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “A. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st and 2nd respondents to make payment of Rs. 1,69,579.69 to the petitioner since this is the amount remaining unpaid to the petitioner for which the goods have already been supplied and the same used by the respondents. B. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the third respondent to pay off the amount due to the petitioner in case he received the amount from the first and second respondents. C. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction commanding the respondents to strictly complied with the provisions of Stores Purchase Manual.” 2. No counter affidavit has been filed. This writ petition was filed on 10-9-2007. Standing counsel for the Municipality, on instructions, submitted that the amounts were withheld because the goods supplied were defective. But the respondents have not been able to support that contention with any acceptable material on record. On a query as to whether the petitioner was informed about the defect, the standing counsel does not give a definite answer. In so far as the petitioner has not been informed of any such defect as contended by the petitioner, the respondents cannot now take a stand that they will not pay the amounts since there were defects in the good supplied. That being so, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to W.P.C. No. 26980/2007 -: 2 :- the respondents to pay to the petitioner the amounts covered by Exts.P2 and P3, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.