High Court of KeralaWP(C)/33385/2015disposed of

Shaji Joseph v. State Of Kerala

2015-12-09Honourable Mr. Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).NO. 33385 OF 2015 (W) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

-------------------------- SHAJI JOSEPH AGED 50 YEARS ELAVATHIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 611. BY ADVS.SRI.SAJU JOHN SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

2. KOTTAYAM JILLA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, COLLECTORATE P.O. KOTTAYAM-686 002.

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LSGD DIVISION, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

4. THE TREASURY OFFICER DISTRICT TREASURY, COLLECTORATE P.O.

KOTTAYAM-686 002.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI. GIKKU JACOB BY SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY, SC, KOTTAYAM JILLA PANCHAYAT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).NO. 33385 OF 2015 (W) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.4.6.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ASKING THE PETITIONER TO EXECUTE NECESSARY AGREEMENT FOR THE WORK. EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD.19.6.2014 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT, WITHOUT ITS ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.I 2/2011/CRD(2) DTD.11.10.2011 OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT ADDRESSING THE SECRETARY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 : COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.7588/2015/FIN DTD.21.8.2015. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

NIL -------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SKV

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No.33385/2015 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 9th Day of December, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner executed a work at the behest of the second respondent under the NABARD Scheme. The event related to the project has to be fourth respondent. The petitioner has approached this Court on account of the delay in settling his bill. The petitioner claims that he is entitled for more than Rs. 59 crore 92,000 529. Next that in the writ petition this Court is of the view that the second respondent shall settle the bill within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and necessary funds in this regard shall be made available by the fourth respondent Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms