IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17851 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.CHANDRAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, AGED 49 YEARS, SHARANYA NIVAS, PACHALLOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, B.S.N.L. BHAVAN, KERALA CIRCLE, PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPLE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM (PLANNING), B.S.N.L. BHAVAN, KALATHIPARAMBU ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER, B.S.N.L. BHAVAN, KALATHIPARAMBU ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (PHONES), ADIMALI, IDUKKI. ADV. SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU,SC,B.S.N.LTD. FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.17851 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 21st August,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner undertook the work of digging trenches,laying cables and other connected works as evidenced by Ext.P1. He made a security deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- at the time of executing Ext.P1 agreement. According to him, he commenced the work on 14.3.2003 and completed the work on 12.5.2003. The officers in the department took measurements belatedly and there was delay in submitting the bill. Bill was processed. It seems that the bill was returned and there was a direction by the Sub Divisional Engineer as per Ext.P5 to resubmit the bill. Ext.P5 reads as follows: “With reference to the letter cited above, the bill is returned to you for furnishing the following items/information. Kindly resubmit the bill early. 1. No stamped receipt in the bill 2. Condon of the delay in submission of the bill by the Area Manager. 3. Difference in 5 pair cable account between M Book and work order. 4. Original of the work order is requested. 5. The allocation of the bill is in a non- W.P ( C) No.17851 of 2009 2 operative estimate. The bill should be included in an operative/revised estimate for processing.” 2. It is the petitioner's case that except the stamp receipt no other condition can be satisfied. Hence the writ petition praying for the following reliefs. a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay the bill amount and security deposit due to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 and P3 with interest @ 12% from 1.1.2004 till payment. b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P6” 3. A statement has been filed by the respondents. Counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner has to give an explanation, for the delay in the submission of the bill. Petitioner is willing to do the same. It is further submitted that the details of difference in 5 pair cable account between M Book and work order should also be explained by the petitioner. This also the petitioner is willing to do. In so far as the original of the work order is concerned, it seems that the petitioner is not in possession of the same. Petitioner shall give explanation as to why he W.P ( C) No.17851 of 2009 3 is not in possession of the original work order. The operative/revised estimate as regards the bill as contemplated by para 5 in Ext.P5 shall also be submitted by the petitioner. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereupon, the petitioner’s bill shall be processed and amount due to him shall be disbursed within one month thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.17851 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No.17851 of 2009 5