IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 217 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- G.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, M.P.NILAYAM, TC 41/1115, MANACAUD P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695009. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.217 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a P.W.D contractor. He is aggrieved by the delay in the matter of disbursement of the amount covered by the bill submitted in respect of work undertaken by him viz., tarring and concreting of Chalakuzhi Bye line. Indisputably, the payment of expenses or the bills to the contractors is being governed by the decision of this Court in W.A.No.263/1999. According to the petitioner, in terms of Ext.P1 agreement, he had completed the work as early as on 31.3.2010. It is his further contention that reckoning the date of completion of the work, there is no justification for his non-inclusion in the priority list in terms of the directions in the judgment in W.A.No.263/1999. To redress the said grievance, he has already approached the respondent through Ext.P2 representation. Despite the receipt of Ext.P2, the respondent is not taking any appropriate action to consider the grievance of the petitioner and to take remedial action. It is in the said circumstances that this Writ Petition has been filed. W.P.(C) NO.217/2011 2 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. Considering the fact that after the completion of the work as early as on 31.3.2010, the petitioner has submitted final bill and asserted that he is entitled to be included in the priority list by virtue of the decision of this Court in W.A.No.263/1999 and for that purpose, he had already approached the respondent through Ext.P2, I am of the view that the grievance raised by the petitioner in and vide Ext.P2 requires consideration. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month. In case it is ultimately found that the petitioner is entitled to be included in the list in terms of the directions in the judgment in W.P.(C).No. 263/1999, the petitioner shall be included at the appropriate spot and appropriate steps shall be taken to disburse the final bill submitted by the petitioner in respect of the above mentioned work, in accordance with such inclusion. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE spc W.P.(C) NO.217/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.217/2011 4