High Court of KeralaWP(C)/22756/2015disposed of

D.Manoharan v. Corporation Of Thiruvananthapuram

2015-09-14Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/23RD BHADRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 22756 of 2015 (T) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

---------------- D.MANOHARAN, AGED 61 YEARS SON OF LATE DAMODARAN, TC NO.20/1735(1) ATTUKAL BHAVANAM, SASTRI NAGAR EAST, KARAMANA POST THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN SRI.A.MOHAMMED FAIZAL SRI.P.G.PRAMOD SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD RESPONDENT(S):

------------------

1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDINGS PALAYAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

2. THE SECRETARY CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION BUILDINGS, PALAYAM POST THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (CORPORATION ENGINEER) CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION BUILDINGS, PALAYAM POST THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

4. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER CORPORATION BUILDINGS, PALAYAM POST THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

R BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 22756 of 2015 (T) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE DATED 04.11.2013. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MATERIAL COLLECTION/LEVEL REPORT DATED 22.09.2014.

EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.05.2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL.

------------------------------ //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

--------------------- W.P (C) No.22756 of 2015 --------------------- Dated this the 14th day of September, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Senior Counsel for the respondents.

2. The treasury bill dated 31.3.2015 in favour of the petitioner issued by the first respondent Corporation could not be encashed for want of liquidity in the treasury. It is reported that respondents 1 and 2 are taking steps to include the name of the petitioner in the priority list for disbursement from the own funds.

3. The petitioner is not much concerned as to whether the disbursement should be from the own funds of the first respondent or from the amounts funded by the Central Government. The petitioner is eager to have the amount due to him settled since similar other contractors have already been paid the money.

4. I direct respondents 1 and 2 to pay the amount due to the petitioner within a period of two months from today.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/- V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

nj.