IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9253 of 2010(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.A.JENSON, GOVT, CONTRACTOR, KIZHAKKEVEETTIL HOUSE, KANNAMALY P.O.,KOCHI-8. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.S.MUJEEB RAHIMAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT.OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. R1 TO R4 BY G.P. SHRI P. N. SANTHOSH ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, ALONG WITH WPC 10742/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos. 9253/2010-F & 10742/2010-P - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The prayers in these two writ petitions are identical. The main prayer is for a direction to the respondents to maintain the fund allotted to the work awarded to the petitioners as per the agreements in question, beyond the period 31.3.2010 without being subjected to lapse. 2. In W.P.(C) No.9253/2010, the petitioner was issued a selection notice as Ext.P1 dated 20.1.2010, to execute the work for the reformation of damaged seawall, etc. in Chellanam island. The agreement was executed on 22.1.2010 and the site was handed over during the first week of February, 2010. The time for completion of the work is upto 31.3.2010. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot complete the work before that period. The work is one sponsored by the Government of India under the 12th Commission Programme. The second respondent informed the petitioner that unless otherwise the entire work is completed on or before 31.3.2010, the amount would be lapsed. It is submitted that it is impossible for him to complete the entire work before 31.3.2010 and he therefore submitted a representation before the second respondent as per Ext.P3, requesting to wpc9253 & 10742 /2010 2 maintain the fund allotted by the Government of India. It is his case that when he contacted the office of the first respondent, he was directed to get necessary direction from this Court for the maintenance of the fund. 3. Identical are the contentions raised in W.P.(C) No.10742/2010 also, wherein the work was awarded as per Ext.P1 dated 11.1.2010. The agreement was executed on 29.1.2010. 4. If the petitioners have executed the agreements, the liability or obligation for payment is in terms of the agreements itself. The same depends upon the completion of the work and the future course taken by the parties with regard to the same. As on today, no adverse orders have been passed against the petitioners with regard to the bills, etc. for payment. 5. The cause of action in these writ petitions is only that the financial year 2009-2010 may end on 31.3.2010 and the fund allotted by the Government of India may also lapse by 31.3.2010. These are exclusively matters under purview of the respective Governments and this Court cannot therefore issue a direction that the funds will be kept without getting lapsed awaiting the completion of the works by the petitioners. Such a direction at this stage, cannot be sought for by the petitioners, as all matters are exclusively within the realm of contract. I do not find any reason to issue wpc9253 & 10742 /2010 3 any such direction at this stage, as sought for by the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/