IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 25047 of 2008(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MURALEEDHARAN.M, P.W.D.CONTRACTOR, MANIKETTY HOUSE, KUTTIPPALLAM THEKKE DESOM (P.O), NALLAPPILLY, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. MR.K.MOHANAKANNAN, SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISON, PWD, PALAKKAD. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, AMBATTUPALAYAM, CHITTUR COLLEGE.P.O, PALAKKAD. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION SUB DIVISON, VENGALAKAYAM, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.25047/2008-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. EC1/WORKS/GL/2006-07 DTD. 13/04/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. ON 18/10/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.1. DTD. 18/02/2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. D3/ECI/19/FD/06-07 DTD. 03/03/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 26/03/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.5.A: COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT OF EXT.P.5. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.E.C1/191/FD/2006-07 DTD. 31/07/2008 SENT BY THE R.1. TO THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.25047 of 2008-F = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010. Judgment 1.The petitioner executed an agreement and did certain works for the State Government in terms of that agreement. The beneficiary appears to be the Minor Irrigation Department. Though the State of Kerala is not a party herein, the petitioner seeks directions to three officials who are respondents to release amounts that are allegedly due to him for the work done by him. 2.In the counter affidavit, the respondents dispute the liability to pay and assert that the petitioner had not worked to the satisfaction of the respondents and that a vigilance enquiry is on. They raised different grounds on which it is pointed out that even the State would be entitled to damages from the petitioner. WPC25047/08 -: 2 :- 3.In the aforesaid circumstances, while the petitioner would say that there is enormous delay from October, 2008 in concluding the vigilance proceedings, I do not find any ground to issue any direction in writ jurisdiction in relation to settlement of accounts regarding a contract. Therefore, while preserving the right of the petitioner to sue the State, if so advised, in accordance with law before the appropriate court or to take recourse to any other remedy that may be available between the parties to the contract, for recovery of any amount that may be due to him, this writ petition is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/0202