IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18557 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.PRATHAPACHANDRAN,AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.BHANU PANICKER,'REVATHY', TC 48/242, AMBALATHARA,POONTHURA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-26. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.K.R.DEEPA ADV.SHRI P.K.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.18557/2010-T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein had executed certain works for the respondent-Corporation. After the completion of the works, he has claimed the amounts covered by the contract as per Exts.P1 to P4 bills. The total amount due to the petitioner is Rs.27,64,680/-. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.27,64,680/- within a time frame. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is facing proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for recovery of Rs.32 lakhs (approximately). According to him, he had availed an overdraft facility from the Federal Bank, Pappanamcode Branch for completing the various works executed for the respondent-Corporation. Therefore, it is submitted that withholding of the amount cannot be justified at all. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submitted that the status of the petitioner in the priority list is 30, 59, 110, 122 and 166 in respect of the various bills, and the amount covered by the bill for which the W.P.(C). No.18557/2010 -:2:- status of the petitioner is 30, has already been disbursed. It is submitted that the said priority was fixed in the light of the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in the W.A.No.263/1999. Going by the guidelines, the only exceptions where the priority can be overlooked are only two; namely for the marriage of the contractor or his children or on medical grounds. It is pointed out that the proceedings under the SERFAESI Act will not therefore entitle the petitioner to get the amount by overlooking the priority. 4. Since the guidelines which were fixed by the Division Bench are being followed, it is not proper for this Court to direct the respondent to pay the amount due to the petitioner overlooking the priority. Proceedings under the SERFAESI Act was not envisaged by the Division Bench when the guidelines were formed. But, still as the guidelines are in force, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought for in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms