IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 23450 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.HARIKUMAR, S/O.VIDHYADHARAN, P.W.D.CONTRACTOR, `SOUPARNIKA', A.R.R.PUBLIC SCHOOL ROAD, NETTAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 013. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE UNIVERSITY ENGINEER, O/O.UNIVERSITY ENGINEER, UNIVERSITY CENTRE, KARIAVATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 581. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.23450/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE REVISED ESTIMATE LETTER DT 29.12.2007 P2 COPY OF THE LETTER DT 31.3.2010. P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 5.7.11. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 23450 of 2011 E ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner, who was awarded the work of preservation and maintenance of football ground and surrounding area of the University Stadium, Thiruvananthapuram and has completed the work, has filed this writ petition, praying for a direction for the payment of the balance amount of `1,81,202/-, which is still remaining unpaid. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein it is stated thus:- “5. Subsequently the University Engineer reported as per Ext.P2 letter dated 31.3.2010 that the petitioner had done extra item of work in addition to the estimated quantity amounting to Rs.1,81,202/- and that, the above amount could not be paid for want of revised W.P.(C) No.23450/2011 : 2 : Administrative Sanction. The University Engineer had forwarded a revised estimate also. But the belated claim was not anticipated by the University. In fact no specific budget provision was made for the spill over. The petitioner had not made any request for the balance claim till 5.7.2011 even though the work was said to be completed in 2008. 6. The Authority to accord Administrative Sanction is the Syndicate and the University has initiated action to accord Administrative Sanction enabling the payment of the spillover work and to make budget provision for the same in the current year budget provision.” 3. Thus, grant of administrative sanction by the Syndicate is the reason stated for not paying the balance amount to the petitioner. 4. In my view, having made the petitioner execute the work, it is the responsibility of the respondents to complete the necessary procedural formalities and the delay already W.P.(C) No.23450/2011 : 3 : caused is unjustified. 5. Therefore, I direct that, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment, the respondents shall ensure that necessary administrative sanction is obtained and the amount due to the petitioner is paid. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the respondents for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/30/09 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge