IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 15814 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.P.ANEESH, S/O. KUNHUMUHAMMED, THANDUPARACKAL HOUSE, VANIYAMBALAM.P.O., VANDOOR(VIA),MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS AND BUILDINGS, NEAR MUSEUM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, P.W.D., NORTH CIRCLE,KOZHIKODE. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, MANJERI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN, FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)NO.15814 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The petitioner was entrusted with the work viz., improvements to Thuvur Neelancheri Arimanal Road from KM 00/0 to 400, pursuant to a notification issued by respondents 3 and 4. The Probable Amount of Contract for the work was Rs.67,74,747/-. The petitioner quoted below the Probable Amount of Contract. According to him, the quantity of the work had to be revised and this was due to several factors. Revised estimate of Rs.83,75,000/- was approved. The petitioner contends that he has done the work for Rs.94,60,462//-. He has received payments also. But, he is yet to receive a sum of Rs.5,31,150/-. Hence this writ petition. W.P.(C)NO.15814 of 2009 :: 2 :: 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the same read as follows: "It is further submitted that as per the conditions of contract, the petitioner is bound to do the essential excess quantity of work in addition to the original estimate, subject to approval of the competent authority according to the delegation of powers issued by the Government. Accordingly, the petitioner has executed some additional works along with the original work. For this the payment will be made at the rate quoted by the petitioner for the original work. In this work it is 35.11% below estimate rate. The work was completed by the petitioner within the stipulated period and the work was measured by the concerned Assistant Engineer and bill submitted in April, 2008 for a total value of Rs.94,50,462/-. The argument that the value of the work was revised from Rs.83.75 lakhs to 94.50 lakhs is wrong. The original estimate was for Rs.67,00,000/- and which was revised to Rs.83,75,000/- after considering quoted rate below 35.11%. The Exhibit P2 produced by the petitioner is not a document issued by the department. W.P.(C)NO.15814 of 2009 :: 3 :: It is submitted that the department has paid the bill of petitioner for a total value of Rs.83,75,000/-. After deducting the quoted rate of below 35.11% cost of materials issued by the department and other statutory recoveries, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.38,45,338/-. The same had been paid to the petitioner through cheque. If the total value is considered as Rs.94,50,462/- the petitioner will be entitled to get proportionate increase in payment. But that amount is temporarily withheld on the basis of an objection raised by the Accountant General during their annual audit, for getting the approval for the revised estimate from the competent authority according to the circular No.C6-60662/2002/G1 dated 16.11.2002 issued by the Chief Engineer. Therefore, the payment of the balance amount which is withheld will be paid on getting sanction from the competent authority, which is under processing. If sanction is accorded, the petitioner contractor will have to execute a supplementary agreement to render him eligible for payment as per agreement condition." W.P.(C)NO.15814 of 2009 :: 4 :: 4. Though the respondents dispute that the estimate was revised from Rs.83.15 lakhs to Rs.94.50 lakhs, they have no dispute that the total value of the work is considered as Rs.94,60,462/-. Then the petitioner will be entitled to proportionate increase in the rate. What stands in the way is an audit objection from the Accountant General's office. If a revision in the estimate of the work was bona fide required and the work has been satisfactorily completed by the petitioner, then he is entitled to payment for the work. It would not be justified in holding back the payment on account of the objection from the office of the Accountant General alone. 5. The 1st respondent shall, therefore, take a decision on the question as to whether a revision in the estimate of the work was actually necessary and if it is found to be necessary and the work has been satisfactorily completed by the petitioner, the balance amount due to him shall be disbursed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this W.P.(C)NO.15814 of 2009 :: 5 :: judgment. Proceedings shall be passed by the 1st respondent, in this regard, within the aforementioned time frame. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/- true copy P.S. To Judge