IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 34201 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GREEN METHOD ENGINEERING (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, DAVIS.M.V, 19/47, MANAPPAT CENTRE, H.M.T. JUNCTION, KALAMASSERY, COCHIN - 683 104. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MILTON SRI.K.P.JUSTINE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY, VADAKKE NADA, KODUNGALLUR, PIN - 680 664. SC SRI. M.P. AShOKKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.34201 OF 2009 (U) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The respondent invited tenders for the construction of a waste water treatment plant at the fish market in Kodungallur based on a project report submitted by the Consultant appointed by them. Petitioner was one of the tenderers. His tender was finally accepted and acceptance was conveyed to him by Ext.P2 letter of the Municipality. The value of the work agreed between the parties was Rs.20,75,000/-.Pursuant to Ext.P2, Ext.P3 work order was issued by the respondent. 2. Accordingly, petitioner commenced the work and completed the same on 27.12.2008. In the meantime, for the work in question the Municipality received an amount of Rs.12,08,000/- from the Fisheries Department as subsidy. Out of the said amount petitioner was paid only Rs.3 lakhs and the balance amount due to him is Rs.17,75,000/- Requests were made by the petitioner for payment. Payment was not made. Finally, Ext.P8 notice was issued on behalf of the petitioner requiring the Municipality to pay Rs.17,75,000/- and Rs.1 lakh WPC.No. 34201/09 :2 : which was deposited by the petitioner as security deposit. Municipality issued Ext.P9 reply where the Municipality did not dispute its liability. However, the Municipality stated that on account of the financial crisis that is being faced by the Municipality it had taken up the matter with the Fisheries Department and as and when payment is received the amount due to the petitioner will be paid. Even thereafter payment was not forthcoming. Therefore this writ petition has been filed. 3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent. It is stated that based on the sanction accorded by the Deputy Director of Fisheries, the Municipality prepared a project for renovation of the fish market. It is stated that the estimate initially prepared was for Rs.17,05, 000/- and that the same was later revised to Rs.20,75,000/-. According to the Municipality, tender was invited and the petitioner being the lowest tenderer work was awarded to him. Going by the statement, it would appear that long after the work commenced the Municipality realized that it had not obtained technical sanction financial sanction and administrative sanction for the amount spent. It is stated that though they took steps to obtain technical sanction, the Superintending Engineer of the Trissur Corporatoin refused to WPC.No. 34201/09 :3 : accord technical sanction. However, the matter was taken up with the Government and the Government by Ext.P5 accorded technical sanction. It is stated that though the project cost was Rs.20,75,000/- lakhs the Fisheries Department has released only an amount of Rs.12,08,000/- lakhs and that the balance Rs.7.67,000/- lakhs is also needed and that the matter has been taken with the authorities and the Municipality is awaiting a decision in this behalf. It is stated that the administrative sanction for the revised project also has to be obtained. According to the Municipality the entire matter has been placed before the Municipal Council for consideration and that the payment can be released only after the audit is completed. 4. In my view none of the justifications offered by the Municipality in its statement can be a reason for not paying the amount that is due to the petitioner. It can be seen that the entire irregularities highlighted by the Municipality in its statement are attributable only to the Municipality and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of the lapses that has been committed by the Municipality. Municipality has no dispute about the work executed by the petitioner or about the amount that is due to the petitioner. After having made the petitioner WPC.No. 34201/09 :4 : executed the work spending huge money, it is not open to the Municipality to state that after audit is completed or administrative sanction is obtained or as and when the amount is received, money will be paid to the petitioner. It is also worth to note that out of Rs.12.08,000/- lakhs received by the Municipality as subsidy from the Fisheries Department, only Rs. 3 lakhs was paid to the petitioner for this project and balance has been diverted for some other purposes. Evidently therefore amount is due to the petitioner and it is the responsibility of the Municipality to pay the amount. I see absolutely no justification for the Municipality in not paying the amount due to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the entire amount due to the petitioner shall be paid by the respondent Municipality as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 34201/09 :5 :