High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
SONY ALEX, S/O.P.K.ALEXANDER v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE - WP(C) No. 15287 of 2007(T)  RD-KL 16664 (4 September 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 15287 of 2007(T)
1. SONY ALEX, S/O.P.K.ALEXANDER,
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
4. KERALA PRADESH CONGRESS COMMITTEE (I),
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.MANU
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
W.P.(C) NO. 15287 OF 2007
Dated this the 4th day of September, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to effect payment of the amount due to the petitioner for the civil works executed by him pursuant to Ext.P1. On account of the visit of a VVIP, by Ext.P1 order, petitioner was asked to execute certain civil works and the works were duly executed by him. In terms of Ext.P2, a Circular issued by the Election Commission of India, the expenses for construction of barricades/rostrums etc., are to be borne initially by the Government agencies on account of security considerations on behalf of the party/organisers and are to be booked as expenditure of a candidate in whose constituency the said meeting takes place. It was accordingly that by Ext.P1, the petitioner was asked by the 3rd respondent to execute the work. Having done the work, WPC 15287/07 petitioner demanded payment and by Ext.P4, the 3rd respondent required the 4th respondent to remit Rs.10,10,114 being the bill amount of the petitioner. This did not evoke any response and despite a further request by Ext.P6, payment has not been made by the 4th respondent. According to the 3rd respondent, it is the liability of the 4th respondent and the petitioner should get payment from the 4th respondent. On this basis, payment has been declined to the petitioner and the said stand is reiterated in the counter filed in this writ petition.
2. I do not see any merit in the contention raised in the counter affidavit. Ext.P2 circular issued by the Election Commission of India, itself shows that although the final expenditure is to be booked as the expenditure of the candidate in whose constituency the meeting takes place, WPC 15287/07 the expenditure on construction is to be initially borne by the Government agency on account of security considerations. It is on that basis by Ext.P1, the 3rd respondent required the petitioner to execute the work. Therefore, after making the petitioner to execute the work, there is no grace in pleading that it is the liability of the 4th respondent and the petitioner should approach the 4th respondent to get payment. I declare that respondents 1 and 3 are liable to make payment to the petitioner and there is no justification in the stand taken by them. Accordingly respondents 1 and 3 are directed to pay the amount due to the petitioner as per Ext.P4 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
3. Although notice has been served on the 4th WPC 15287/07 respondent, there is no appearance. Since the liability is primarily that of the 4th respondent, it will be open to respondents 1 and 3 to take such action as is permissible for recovering, from the 4th respondent, the amount paid to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.Rp
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.