IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4130 of 2009(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.MURALEEDHARAN, KUNNATHUKONATHU VEEDU, SHANTHIPURAM, CHEMPAZHANTHY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KAZHAKUTTOM BLOCK PANCHAYATH, BLOCK PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, POVERTY ALLEVIATION UNIT, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KAZHAKUTTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH FOR R2 GP SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4130 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE BILL PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER RECOMMENDED BY THE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.1.2009 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).4130/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner, who was the convener of a beneficiary Committee constituted by the 2nd respondent, was entrusted with the work of improvement of Kaithekuzhi Aruvikarakonam Road in Sreekariyam Panchayath under the Scheme called “SGRY – 2004 – 05”. According to the petitioner, the work was completed and he submitted a bill for an amount of Rs.1,50,579/- a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1. It is stated that the bill was certified by the Assistant Engineer and the Assistant Executive Engineer. Though the bill was submitted way back in the year 2008, despite various representations, payment was not made and hence the writ petition was filed. 2. The 2nd respondent submits that the work was not completed within the time allowed and that although the work was completed belatedly, in terms of the rules governing the SGRY Scheme, final bill ought to have been submitted by the petitioner, along with a report of the Monitoring Committee certifying satisfactory execution of W.P.(C).4130/09 2 work. It is stated that as against this requirement, petitioner did not produce the report of the Monitoring Committee and that therefore, the bill could not be processed. It is stated that the period of the Scheme expired on 31.3.2008 and the funds are also not now available with the Panchayat for satisfaction of the bill at this distance of time. 3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the practice followed is that if any balance amount is available under the SGRY Scheme, that will be allocated to next year's NREG programme. It is stated that insofar as the 2nd respondent Panchayath is concerned, the entire funds were utilized and there was no occasion to carry forward any balance amount. He also confirms the submission of the 2nd respondent that no funds are available at this stage. 4. Thus, according to the respondents, although amounts are due to the petitioner, since the Panchayath has no funds available at this distance of time, Panchayath cannot settle the bill submitted by the petitioner, unless the Government allots any funds for this purpose. W.P.(C).4130/09 3 5. Despite this, this Court would have been justified in issuing a direction to the Panchayath to make payment, provided the delay in settlement of bill was for reasons attributable to the Panchayath. On the materials on record, I am not in a position to arrive at such a conclusion for the reason that the petitioner has not established that he had produced the report of the Monitoring Committee along with the bill. In these circumstances, the only relief that can be granted to the petitioner is to direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2, a representation made by the petitioner seeking payment of his dues. This the 1st respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs