IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8444 of 2009(A) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- E.B.PRASANNAN, ETTICKEL HOUSE, MICHEL GIRI, KANTHALLOOR, IDUKKI. BY MR.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH, ADVOCATE. MR.K.S.ROCKEY, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. KANTHALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, KANTHALLOOR, IDUKKI. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD SECTION, KANTHALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, IDUKKI. 3. MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, KANTHALLOOR,IDUKKI. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND MEMBER SECRETARY, DISTRICT PLANNING COMMITTEE, PAINAVU, IDUKKI. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.EASOW MATHEW, ADVOCATE, FOR R1. MS. K.R. DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8444/2009 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE AGREEMENT No.1/2007 EXECUTED ON 8.3.2007 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT FOR the WORK PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE OUT PATIENT BLOCK KANTHALLOOR. EXT. P2 : COPY OF THE BILL DTD. 29.3.2008 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF OUT PATIENT BLOCK TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH CENTRE, KANTHALLOOR. EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD. 1.4.2008 OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P4 : COPY OF THE LETTER No.C1-10688/08 DTD. 12.12.2008 from the DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, IDUKKI. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.8444 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, as a convenor of a beneficiary committee, who undertook certain work on behalf of the 1st respondent – Panchayt, is stated to have completed the work as per the agreement to the satisfaction of the respondents and submitted bills before 31.3.2008. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the bill amount is not paid yet. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent also. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the liability of the 1st respondent to pay the amount is not disputed by them. The non-payment is only on account of dispute as to whether it should be paid from the plan fund or other funds of the Panchayat. I am of opinion that whatever is the fund from which the amount is paid, the petitioner is entitled to payment for the work done by him in so far as the 1st respondent has no complaint against the work done by him and the liability to pay is also not W.P.(c)No.,8444/09 2 disputed. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to pay amount due to the petitioner for the work done by him, as the Convenor of a beneficiary committee, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.,8444/09 3