EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. KERALA LOKAYUKTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exts. P5 and P7 are under challenge in this Original Petition at the instance of three officers of the State against whom a petition was filed by the 2nd respondent, before the 1st respondent, the Kerala Lokayukta. The 2nd respondent was the contractor. He had undertaken the work of resurfacing the road from Guest House junction to Thycaud. The work had to be completed in January 2000. The bitumen had to be supplied by the department. There were other contractors with similar condition. They were given bitumen, but the 2nd respondent was not. Thus he was discriminated. Therefore, he submitted a petition before Lokayukta. It was taken as complaint No. 333/01. Before the Lokayukta it was agreed that required quantity of bitumen would be given to him within two months and that the 2nd respondent would complete the work within another two months thereafter. Bitumen had been supplied as agreed to. Work was also completed. Accordingly the matter was disposed of by the Lokayukta as per Ext. P5 with the direction that payment for the work at the existing rate will be made on before the 1st week of November. Bill had been submitted and the same was passed on 22.12.2001. But the payment was not made. The 2nd respondent moved the Lokayukta again to take action against petitioners herein. It is in the above circumstances, Ext. P7 has been passed. Having found that the amount had not been paid, the Lokayukta ordered as follows:

(2.) Of course, taking from the date of Ext. P5 there is some delay in filing this petition. But petitioners are aggrieved because of the order in Ext. P7. If its date is taken as the commencement of period of limitation, it cannot be taken that there is any latches on the part of the petitioners. O.P. has been filed on 12.6.2002. Therefore, the contention of the 2nd respondent that there is latches on the part of petitioners cannot be accepted.

(3.) When the Original Petition is itself maintainable, necessarily, contention of the petitioners to be considered. It is contended by the petitioners that they are bound by Ext. P6 decision of the Division Bench whereby this Court had directed to keep priority in the matter of payment to contractors. Later these cases were referred to Full Bench. As per the Full Bench decision it was directed that the payment to contractors shall be made in the order of priority. If the payment is effected to the 2nd respondent, as directed by the Lokayukta the petitioners will be found guilty of violating the direction given by the Full Bench of this Court. Petitioners are unable to comply with the direction for payment.