IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 27777 of 2006(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- PAUL V.THOMAS, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, VETTUVAZHY PUTHENPURA, MEENPARA P.O., PUTHENCRUEZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER, THE KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., THRISSUR. 4. THE CHAIRMAN (DISTRICT COLLECTOR), TMKDA (THRISSUR MALAPPURAM KOLE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY), THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN FOR R.3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHAFOR R1&4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.27777/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DT 11/7/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT 9.1.2002. EXT.P3: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 5/12/2002 SUBMITTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.152/2004 DT 23/7/2004. EXT.P5: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 6/11/2004 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: A PHOTOCOPY OF the LETTER DT 24/12/2004. EXT.P7: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 6/1/2005. EXT.P8: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DT 6/2/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9: A PHOTOCOPY OF the JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.5331/2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DT 23/2/2006. EXT.P10: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DT 18/2/2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DT.3/4/2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 27777 OF 2006 (F) ==================== Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is regarding the rejection of his claim for Rs.5,71,680/-, which according to him is the cost of extra items of work which he claimed along with the part bill submitted in 2001. According to the Government, part bill was rejected way back in November, 2001 and the final bill also was settled as early as on 27/11/2005. 2. In para 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is stated thus. Since the matter of payment of the deducted amount of Rs.5,71,680/- is referred to the Chief Technical Examiner, this respondent is awaiting orders from the competent authority. On receipt of the orders from the Chief Technical Examiner, it is to be placed before the Executive Committee of the Kole Land Development Agency for its approval. Hence, the writ petition itself is premature and is devoid of any merits. It is humbly submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the above reasons and it is accordingly prayed. 3. Evidently, therefore, the 4th respondent is awaiting orders from the Chief Technical Examiner for placing the matter before the Executive Committee of the 4th respondent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Chief Technical Examiner has already submitted his report. WPC 27777/06 :2 : 4. If it is factually so, as undertaken in para 6 of its counter affidavit, necessarily the 4th respondent will have to place the claim of the petitioner before its Executive committee for taking a decision on the petitioner's claim in the light of the report they have obtained from the Chief Technical Examiner. This the 4th respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp