IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8425 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.A. ABDULKHADER, MELETHU PADINJARE PUTHENPURAYIL, CHELAKULAM, VENGOLA POST, PIN - 683 554, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.J.JOSEPH SMT.M.V.LIGI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VAZHAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAZHAKULAM, MARAMPILLY.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, VAZHAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VAZHAKULAM, MARAMPILLY.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN FOR R1-2 SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R1-2 SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD FOR R1-2 SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) FOR R1-2 SRI.MATHEW SUNNY FOR R1-2 GP K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8425 of 2010 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.S/AE/LSGD/09-10 DATED 7.7.09 EXT.P2- A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT SCHEDULE OF THE WORKS ATTACHED TO EXT.P1 EXT.P3- A COPY OF THE MEASUREMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 5.1.10 EXT.P4- A COPY OF THE BILL DATED 8.1.10 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P5- A COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.3.10 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED. (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).8425/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he had executed an agreement dated 7.7.2008 with the respondent Panchayat for the construction of Panchayat Office building. According to him, although he has completed the work and submitted Ext.P4 bill for Rs.26,62,048/- he was paid only Rs.8,25,281/- and he claims payment of the balance amount. It is stated that despite demands, the amount has not been paid so far. It is with this grievance the writ petition has been filed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that they were always willing to have a joint measurement of the work done by the petitioner and it is because of the petitioner's indifference that joint measurement was not possible. It is also submitted that if the petitioner reports for a joint measurement, measurement will be taken and payment will be made on that basis. 3. Petitioner has no objection to this suggestion of the W.P.(C).8425/10 2 Panchayat. But however, all that he wants is a reservation that in case he has any dispute about the measurement or the payment made, he should be allowed to pursue his remedies. This appears to be a reasonable demand. Having regard to the submissions thus made, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; 4. Petitioner will report before the respondent Panchayat on 29.3.2010 at 11.00 am and thereupon the Panchayat will depute its Engineer and get the work done by the petitioner measured. Once measurement is done as above, payment of the admitted amount due to the petitioner in terms of the agreement between the parties will be made. It is made clear that in case the petitioner has any dispute, it will be open to the petitioner to pursue his legal remedies. Once the measurement is completed as above, payment shall be made as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three weeks. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs