IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 911 of 2009(H) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M/S K.RAVINDRAN, K.R. COMPLEX, DOOR NO. 6/348, YMCA ROAD, CALICUT -1, REP. BY ITS JOINT MANAGING PARTNER, MR. V. RAJENDRANATH. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.P.G.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS AND BUILDINGS, NEAR MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENTING ENGINEER, ROADS AND BRIDGES, PWD NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS DIVISION, MANJERI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A.ASIFF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN,J ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 911 OF 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Smt.M.A.Vaheeda Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.A.Asiff, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner firm is a contractor. The work of “ Improvements to Edasserykadavu-Puzhamparamba Cheruvadi Road ” in Malappuram District was awarded to the petitioner firm and thereupon Ext.P2 agreement dated 11.1.2005 was entered into between the petitioner firm and the State Government. The probable amount of contract as per the tender notification was Rs. 81,64,351/-. After the work commenced, a revised estimate had to be prepared in view of the increase in the quantity of work. The revised estimate was approved by the Superintending Engineer. As per the revised estimate, the cost of the work was Rs.1,03,12,788/-. The petitioner firm completed the work awarded to them as per the specifications and thereupon Ext.P4 completion certificate dated, 15.10.2007 was issued by the Superintending Engineer. Ext.P4 states that the work has been carried out generally as per specification and completed satisfactorily. It is also stated that there are no noticeable defects. W.P.(C) NO. 911 OF 2009 2 3. While the work was in progress, part payment of the bills was made. After the work was completed the petitioner submitted the final bill. When payment was not forthcoming, the petitioner sent Ext.P5 letter to the Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Division, Manjeri requesting for payment of the final bill . On receipt of Ext.P5 letter, the Executive Engineer sent Ext.P6 letter dated 29.12.2008 to the petitioner informing them that payment can be made only after approval of the competent authority for the revised estimate is obtained. It is stated that the Superintending Engineer was not competent to sanction the revised estimate as it was beyond his financial powers. This writ petition was thereupon filed, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the balance amount as per the final bill. The petitioner contends that as the respondents do not dispute the fact that the work was done as per the specifications and completed satisfactorily, the respondents are not justified in withholding payment of the final bill. The petitioner submits that he had spent money for the work after availing a loan from the Federal Bank and that unless payment is made expeditiously, they will suffer heavy loss. The petitioner also relies on W.P.(C) NO. 911 OF 2009 3 the decision of a learned Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.314 of 2008 to contend that as there is no objection to the execution of the work, payment of the final bill cannot be withheld. 4. Though this writ petition was admitted on 9.1.2009, the respondents have not till date filed a counter affidavit. The respondents have also not disputed the correctness of the statement in Ext.P4 completion certificate. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that payment was withheld for the reason that the Superintending Engineer was not competent to sanctioned the revised estimate since the revised estimate was more than 25% of the probable amount of contract, fixed in the tender notification. 5. I have considered this submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel appearing on either side. It is evident from Ext.P4 certificate issued ,by the Superintending Engineer and Ext.P6 letter sent by the Executive Engineer that the petitioner has completed the work. It is also evident that there is no dispute regarding the quantity of the work done by the petitioner. Payment is withheld on the short ground that approval of the revised estimate was beyond the financial powers of the Superintending Engineer. In my opinion, the said stand cannot be W.P.(C) NO. 911 OF 2009 4 countenanced. The objection raised is a technical one as regards the competence of the Superintending Engineer to approve the revised estimate. If the revised estimate had to be approved by any superior authority namely the Chief Engineer or the Government, the respondents ought to have in my opinion taken steps to obtain such approval. The work was completed in the year 2007. Nearly two years have passed after the final bill was submitted. Sanction for the revised estimate ought to have been obtained by now. In such circumstances , I am of the opinion that the respondents are not entitled to withhold payment of the final bill. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the balance amount payable to the petitioner in relation to the work in question shall be disbursed expeditiously and in any event within three months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the fourth respondent. I however, make it clear that if ultimately the Government comes to be conclusion that the work has not been satisfactorily completed or the revised estimate was improperly prepared , it will be open to the Government to take appropriate steps in the matter after notice to the petitioner. In such an event, it will also be W.P.(C) NO. 911 OF 2009 5 open to the Government to take appropriate action against the officers of the department responsible for approving the revised estimate without orders of sanction from the Government. P.N.RAVINDRAN,JUDGE. pm W.P.(C) NO. 911 OF 2009 6