Disposed

Sirly Jose v. the State of Kerala and 2 Others

Kerala HC27 Sept 2011WP(C)/22620/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that since the writ petition involved disputed questions of fact regarding alleged breach of contract leading to termination, the remedy did not lie in writ proceedings under Article 226. The petition was disposed of with liberty to seek remedy in appropriate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Reserving liberty to seek remedy in appropriate proceedings, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sirly Jose Vs the State of Kerala and 2 Others — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 5TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 22620 of 2011(B)

¶6

--------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-----------------------

¶9

SIRLY JOSE, P.W.D.CONTRACTOR, VALIYA PRAMBIL, THACHAMPARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

------------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶14

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION & ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, MUSEUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶15

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, MALAPPURAM - 676505.

¶16

SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WPC NO.22620/11

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DT 11.8.11. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE DT 27.10.09. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 5.3.10. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE DT 27.10.09. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 24.2.2010. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER 28.9.2010. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE DT 27.10.09. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 6.3.10.

¶22

EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER DT 28.9.10.

¶23

EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPT.,TVM DATED 22.2.11.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22620 OF 2011

¶28

=====================

¶29

Dated this the 27^th day of September, 2011

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Petitioner is a contractor. Ext.P1 is the tender notice inviting tenders for the works mentioned therein. Petitioner quoted for three works and was issued Exts.P2, P4 and P7 selection notices, following the approval of the offers made by the petitioner. It is seen that, by Exts.P3 and P8, he was called upon to execute agreements which was not done and finally the works awarded to the petitioner were terminated by Exts.P6 and P9 termination orders at the risk and cost of the contractor. Petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P10 representation for return of the EMD on the allegation that what led to the termination is breach of contract committed by the respondents. It is thereupon the writ petition is filed.

¶32

A reading of Exts.P6 and P9 and the pleadings in the writ petition show that while the petitioner is accusing the respondents of having committed breach of the contract, the reason for termination is breach alleged on the part of the petitioner. This therefore discloses that the issues raised in the

¶33

WPC No. 22620/11

¶34

:2 :

¶35

writ petition involve disputed question of fact and therefore the remedy of the petitioner is not in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

Reserving the petitioner's liberty to seek his remedy in appropriate proceedings, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶37

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶38

Sirly Jose v. the State of Kerala and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sirly Jose v. the State of Kerala and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnankutty Vs the Kerala Minerals and Metals

K.P,Laila Vs Union of India

Jomy Vs Welfare Fund Inspector

K.I.Ummer Khan Vs Suraj

Anna J Pynadath Vs State of Kerala

Poonithura Service Co-Op.Bank Ltd. Vs the Post Master, Post Office, Maradu