The petitioner has come up before this Court for a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P7 and to disburse the amount due from the respondents to him.
2. Pursuant to the tender notification issued by the third respondent for construction of an office-cum-shopping complex for the first respondent, the petitioner submitted a tender. Accordingly, the third respondent served Ext.P1 selection notice upon the petitioner and the petitioner executed Ext.P2 agreement. The probable amount of contract was ₹41,44,000/-.
3. The petitioner alleges that the agreement which he had executed for the construction work of nine items shown in Ext.P2 was to the satisfaction of the respondents. He further alleges that there was no space for storing the earth excavated during the foundation stage and it was has to be transported to nearby space. It is pointed out that there was no provision in the schedule for this. The petitioner alleges that due to this, there was a delay of 40 days in starting the work. The petitioner says that at the instance of the Assistant Executive Engineer, he could proceed with the work and obtained payment of a part bill.
4. The petitioner further alleges that during the course of execution of the work, he was compelled to execute works which were not scheduled as per Ext.P2 on the assurance that he will have to get the amount for that works also based on revised estimate. However, before 15.1.2013, he had completed about 80% of the work and made arrangements for the balance concrete work; it is alleged. The petitioner sought a date for the balance 20% of the concrete work from the third respondent and according to him, as there was no reply he submitted Ext.P6 and explained the reason for the delay in completing the work. It was pointed out by the petitioner that at this juncture, the Assistant Executive Engineer interfered with the matter and directed the third respondent to complete the work. Hence, at the instance of the third respondent, two Overseers, President of the Grama Panchayat, members of the monitoring committee and other local leaders of the political parties the petitioner completed the concrete work on 16.4.2013.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that after the completion of the work, he submitted Ext.P7 request for the balance amount. But, the payments have not been made, for reasons best known to the respondents.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Panchayat they have challenged the genuineness of Ext.P2. It is also contested by them that certain defects were detected in the concrete work. According to them, the steel bars used for reinforcement of concrete was seen exposed and the execution of the work was not up to the mark.
7. Arguments have been heard.
8. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in reply to Ext.R2(H) notice issued to the petitioner, the petitioner has given Ext.P10 by which he has made it clear that the steel bars which were seen exposed were not due to any defective mode in the construction, but they were put only for extension of the existing roof of the present building.
9. In the light of the above submission, this Court feels that the Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the Assistant Executive Engineer, Block Panchayat, Pathanapuram, who is the superior officer of the third respondent to inspect the building and ascertain whether the stand taken by the petitioner is true. If the steel bars now seen exposed are intended only for extension, there is no reason why the payment should be denied.
10. The second respondent is directed to get the presence of the Assistant Executive Engineer on the strength of this judgment within a period of one month from today and to complete the aforesaid exercise. If it is certified by the Assistant Executive Engineer that there is no defect in the concrete work, the amount due to the petitioner shall be disbursed to him within a period of two weeks thereafter.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
krj Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE