A K VARKEY Vs. KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Municipality has filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein two contentions are seen raised. (1) The delay is on account of want of funds. (2) The Municipality has to adhere to the priorities in the matter of releasing payments due to various contractors

(2.) The instant work is of the year 2001. I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's bill for CP had to be given topmost priority since it pertains to the year 2001. All the other contractors who had executed works subsequent to 2001, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, have been paid off.

(3.) I notice that in the counter affidavit it is not contended that on considerations of priority, the petitioner's bill will have to be delayed. The reason for the delay which is stated in the counter affidavit is only lack of funds.