Petitioner challenged non-payment of bill for tarring work. High Court held that with disputed liability, it cannot direct payment. Petitioner advised to seek relief before appropriate forum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/8TH ASHADHA 1934
WP(C).No. 8024 of 2012 (C)
PETITIONER(S):
R.THYAGARAJAN, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR, POTHOTTUKUZHIVEEDU, ELAVANIKKARA, VELIYAMCODU P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. KARAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
3. THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.V.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
SRI.K.A.HASSAN SRI.G.ARUN SMT.JULIA PRIYA RESHMY R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED SHAFI.M.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
WPC.NO.8024/2012 C
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED ESTIMATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.3.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
R1(A): COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 14/11/2011 IN BETWEEN THE PANCHAYAT AND THE PETITIONER.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 8024 OF 2012
===================
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner says that he had executed a contract work of tarring of PHC road in Ward No.1 of the respondent Panchayat. It is his case that he did the work satisfactorily and that despite the above, his bill amount of `74,444 remains unpaid. It is therefore this writ petition has been filed. Counsel also placed considerable reliance on Ext.P2 to contend that the Panchayat has certified the work to have been satisfactorily executed. Therefore, it is argued that there is no justification for non payment.
WPC.No.8024/12
:2 :
payment of the amount. It is also the case of the Panchayat that by virtue of the provisions of Ext.R1(a) agreement between the parties, any dispute arising between them is to be resolved by way of arbitration. On these pleadings, Panchayat seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to seek his remedies before the appropriate forum.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct payment of an unpaid bill for public work when liability is disputed.
Whether a disagreement over the satisfactory execution of a tarring contract precludes interim payment under writ jurisdiction.
Whether the petitioner must seek adjudication of the claim before the appropriate forum rather than via the writ court.
R.THYAGARAJAN
KARAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
