D MANOHARAN Vs. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.