JUDGMENT : P.M. MANOJ, J. The writ petition is preferred challenging Ext.P15 demand of fine raised on the basis of audit objection. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been awarded with the work of Idamalayar Irrigation Project – LL.C improvements to the inspection road and providing drainage facilities between Ch.2700m to 3663m. The probable amount of contract was Rs.24,70,612/-. As per the selection notice the work had to be completed within six months from the date of handing over the site. The agreement was executed between the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent. 3. However, it is contended by the petitioner that the site was handed over only on 31.05.2011, just one day before the onset of monsoon. The time for completion of the work was 30.11.2011. The initial level proposed for filling was sanctioned only on 28.10.2011 ie., almost one month prior to the date of completion of the work as per the agreement. The monsoon started from 01.06.2011 and the work was delayed, and the petitioner was constrained to ask for extension since only one month time was left for completion from the date of acknowledgment of handing over the site. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 application for an extension, wherein the petitioner has assigned specific reasons for the delay occurred from his part. On considering the same, the Superintending Engineer who signed the agreement, after evaluating the circumstances, granted an extension as per Ext.P7 for a further period of four months from 30.11.2011 to 31.03.2012, without imposing any penalty. 4. Even thereafter, the petitioner could not complete the work, the assigned reason is that the part bill was not paid to him. Accordingly, he has preferred Ext.P8 representation for further extension. Even that was also considered by the 2 nd respondent and after evaluating the circumstances he was pleased to extend the period up to 30.06.2012. Thereafter, a completion certificate was issued as per the certificate dated 16.11.2012, following an inspection conducted on 14.11.2012, by the 1 st respondent to his complete satisfaction. Therefore, Ext.P11 was issued whereby it is intimated that certain audit objections were raised by the Accountant General on the ground that an extension was granted due to delay in the payment of a part bill. Therefore, Ext.P11 was issued whereby it is intimated that certain audit objections were raised by the Accountant General on the ground that an extension was granted due to delay in the payment of a part bill. In that respect the petitioner has produced Ext.P12 Government Order, wherein it is specifically stated that if the part bills remain unpaid for a period ranging from 2 to 3 years and the contractors have a problem in proceeding the work, then the exemption can be granted from payment of fine to those contractors for whom time of completion of work is extended on account of delays in payment of part bills. 5. On receipt of the same, the petitioner has preferred his explanation by filing Ext.P13 reply wherein he has categorically stated the reasons for the delay and noted that he had been granted with extension of time without fine by the 2nd respondent. This issue was communicated to the Accountant General as per Ext.P14. Thereafter, by Ext.P15, another Superintending Engineer has declined the same and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.50,600/- towards fine for the delay in completing the work. Therefore, the petitioner preferred this writ petition challenging Ext.P15 order. 6. The 2 nd respondent has preferred a counter a wherein it is specifically contended that the petitioner himself has executed an indemnity bond while releasing the security deposit and he has indemnified that as per Ext.R2(a). In consideration of the payment of sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner, which is the security deposit, he had agreed that he will at all times indemnify and keep indemnified the Government from the fine for extending the time of completion, if any, made or which may be made, and all actions and proceedings taken against the Government by any person whomsover in respect of the payment of the said amount to the petitioner. 7. The 4 th respondent Accountant General also preferred a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that Superintending Engineer vide order dated 25.02.2012 sanctioned extension of time of completion up to 30.06.2012, without penalty on the ground that eligible part bill was pending. 7. The 4 th respondent Accountant General also preferred a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that Superintending Engineer vide order dated 25.02.2012 sanctioned extension of time of completion up to 30.06.2012, without penalty on the ground that eligible part bill was pending. Upon reviewing the details, it was found that the said letter had been sought from the 2 nd respondent, and vide letter No.A3-636/2010 dated 26.08.2013, the Executive Engineer, Idamalayar Irrigation Project Division, No.I, Angamaly, submitted that the first part bill of the above work was received in that office on 27.03.2012 only. Therefore, the extension of time of completion without fine was not acceptable as the bill was submitted only a few days before the due date of completion and the same was communicated to Superintending Engineer. The Department quoted G.O.(P) No.83/2000/PWD dated 18.12.2000, that is Ext.P12. That benefit was given in cases where the part bill was delayed for more than two to three years. 8. In response to that the petitioner has preferred a reply affidavit stating that the petitioner has earnestly completed the work within the stipulated period. The delay was occurred only due to the reason stated in Exts.P7 and P9. It is further contended that the bills are not prepared by the contractor but by the Assistant Engineer with due certification. Any delay in submitting the part bill, if at all, is not attributable to the petitioner. Merely executing an indemnity bond for the limited purpose of releasing the security deposit does not justify imposing the entire liability on him. 9. I have heard Sri.M.C. John, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Rashmi K.M., the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. 10. I have considered the arguments across the Bar. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had agreed to complete the work of Idamalayar Irrigation Project – LL.C improvements to the inspection road and providing drainage facilities between Ch.2700m to 3663m. The initial date of completion of the work was six months from 31.05.2011 to 30.11.2011. However, the initial level proposed for filling was sanctioned only on 28.10.2011. Monsoon started from 01.06.2011 and the work was delayed. As a result, the petitioner was constrained to request for an extension, as there was only one month remaining for completion of the work. Sanction was granted for filling the initial level. Accordingly, he submitted a proper application as per Ext.P5. Monsoon started from 01.06.2011 and the work was delayed. As a result, the petitioner was constrained to request for an extension, as there was only one month remaining for completion of the work. Sanction was granted for filling the initial level. Accordingly, he submitted a proper application as per Ext.P5. Upon considering the same, as per Ext.P7, the Superintending Engineer granted an extension of four months, from 30.11.2011 to 31.03.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8, citing the non- completion of the work within the stipulated time due to a shortage of funds caused by the non-payment of the part bill he had submitted. 11. Upon reviewing the facts of the case, the Superintending Engineer once again granted an extension without imposing fine. This was in compliance of Ext.P12 Government Order which is referred as item No.5 in the reference of Ext.P9 order, and the petitioner had completed the work in the extended period which was acknowledged by issuing Ext.P10 completion certificate, wherein the 2nd respondent has recorded his complete satisfaction. Thereafter, the same Superintending Engineer intimated the petitioner regarding the audit objection raised by the 4 th respondent Accountant General. This was replied by the petitioner as per Ext.P13. On considering the said reply, the Superintending Engineer recommended the matter to the Accountant General, however, that was rejected. On the basis of such rejection, Ext.P15 demand was raised for an amount of Rs.50,600/- towards fine for extending the period of work up to 30.06.2012. 12. Upon considering the issue involved in this case, I gathered that Exts.P7 and P9 orders were issued for extension of time. The Superintending Engineer is the competent authority at the first instance to examine the factual aspects of the contractual agreement. He made a conscious decision on two occasions, in compliance with Ext.P12 Government Order whereby he explicitly decided to exclude the fine while extending the period, and he has also recorded his satisfaction with the completion of the work. Nevertheless, merely based on an audit objection which was raised on the grounds that Ext.P12 was issued on the premise that the part payment bill had been pending for more than two years, fine cannot be imposed. In that case, the delay occurred in completing the work can be exempted from effecting payment of fine. Nevertheless, merely based on an audit objection which was raised on the grounds that Ext.P12 was issued on the premise that the part payment bill had been pending for more than two years, fine cannot be imposed. In that case, the delay occurred in completing the work can be exempted from effecting payment of fine. But to that aspect, the petitioner submitted his explanation, stating that the part bill was allegedly submitted two or three days prior to 27.03.2012 ie., during the first extension period. He further explained that the preparation of the part payment bill was the responsibility of the Assistant Engineer and not the contractor. 13. Therefore, the responsibility of delay in submitting the part bill cannot be mulcted on the petitioner, being the contractor. On considering this, I deem it appropriate to hold that the petitioner cannot be mulcted with the liability of paying the fine because the Superintending Engineer had taken a conscious decision after considering all these aspects, including Ext.P12. Having been satisfied that there was sufficient reason not to impose the fine, the petitioner cannot be made liable to pay it only because of the audit objection. Under such circumstances, Ext.P15 is set aside. However, if it is found that the amount is still due to the Government, appropriate action may be taken against the person who sanctioned the extension without imposing fine. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.