High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

R. RADHAKRISHNAN vs STATE OF KERALA

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 21 June 2017 · Citation: (2017) 06 KL CK 0024

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.B.Suresh Kumar
CASE NUMBER
7676 of 2017 (H)

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

37 paragraphs · 358 words
1.

The petitioner is the convenor of the workers

engaged usually for executing forestry works. The case of the

petitioner is that the amounts due to the workers represented

by him in respect of 12 works executed by them have not been

disbursed. He, therefore, seeks appropriate direction in this

writ petition for disbursement of the proceeds of the works

executed by the workers represented by him.

2.

After the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner

produced a communication sent by the Chief Forest Conservator

(I & E), Kottayam to the Additional Principal Chief Forest

Conservator (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated in the said communication that the petitioner has completed 7 out

of 12 works referred to in the writ petition and the payments

due in respect of the same have not been effected since the

estimate for the said works was not sanctioned by the

appropriate authority. In the said communication, it is stated

that the petitioner is entitled to the payments in respect of the

said 7 works.

3.

It is pointed by the learned Special Government

Pleader that since the works have been executed, a decision in

this regard can be taken only by the Principal Chief Conservator

(Forest & Management), Thiruvananthapuram.

4.

The fact that the petitioner has executed 7 out of

12 works referred to in the writ petition, is not in dispute. As

such, the petitioner is entitled to the payment thereof, for, he is

not responsible for the execution of the works without the

estimate sanction. As regards the remaining works, he is

entitled to payment for the portion of the works which he has

completed.

In the circumstances, the Principal Chief Conservator

(Forest & Management), Thiruvananthapuram is impleaded suo

motu as additional third respondent in the writ petition and the

writ petition is disposed of directing the additional third

respondent to take a final decision as regards the payment to

be made to the petitioner for the completed works as also the

works which have not been completed by the petitioner. This

shall be done within three weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.