Partly allowed

Dr.Jess Raphael v. the Executive Enginner

Kerala HC4 Nov 2011WP(C)/27572/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought protection for Kolarikkal Thodu sides. The 1st respondent was directed to prepare and submit a detailed project report within two months. Respondents were ordered to finalize and complete the work on a priority basis thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Directed 1st respondent to submit detailed project report within 2 months; respondents to complete work on priority basis thereafter.

Dr.Jess Raphael Vs the Executive Enginner — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 27572 of 2011(V)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

DR.JESS RAPHAEL, PAVANATHARA HOUSE, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM, NOW RESIDING AT MARUTHU ROAD, ASSN.NO4, BEHIND K.S.R.T.C. BUS STATION, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR IRRIGATION CIVIL LINES, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL LINES, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶15

3. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIIGATION GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANNANTHAPURAM

¶16

4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION & ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PUBLIC BUILDINGS,THIRUVANNANTHAPURAM.

¶17

5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CENTRAL CIRCLE,THRISSUR.

¶18

SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WPC NO.27572/11

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF IRRIGATION DATED 26/1/1992.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY MLA OF ERNAKULAM CONNSTITUENCY DATED 14/08/2010.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/8/2010 BEOFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 31086/2010 DATED 11/10/2010.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SUBMITTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12/11/2010.

¶28

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28/1/2011 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE UTILITY CERTIFICATE.

¶30

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16/3/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONDATED 22/6/2011 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4/8/2011 BEOFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27572 OF 2011

¶36

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

¶37

Dated this the 4^th day of November, 2011

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

The issue raised in this writ petition is regarding the requirement of protecting the sides of Kolarikkal Thodu near Chittoor Ferry in Cheranalloor Panchayat. The prayer sought in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to complete the work in this financial year itself.

¶40

Petitioner submits that initially an estimate of `55.50 lakhs was prepared and that the 5^th respondent had submitted the same to the 4^th respondent as per Ext.P6. It is stated that the 4^th respondent considered the issue and returned the same to the 5^th respondent as per Ext.P8 and that since then, there has not been any progress in the matter. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed.

¶41

Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. According to her, on 8/6/11, the 5^th respondent had returned the estimate to the 1^st respondent with a direction to submit a detailed project report containing all particulars of the work in question. It is stated that the matter is pending

¶42

WPC No. 27572/11

¶43

:2 :

¶44

consideration of the 1^st respondent and that the 1^st respondent is in the process of preparing the project report. It is submitted that once the project report is prepared and the same is submitted for the approval of respondents 4 and 5, and if it is approved, the work in question will be completed on a priority basis.

¶45

Evidently therefore, the project report is under preparation of the 1^st respondent. Going by the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, 5^th respondent has returned the estimate in June, 2011. Now that almost five months have elapsed and inordinate delay has already been caused, I direct the 1^st respondent to complete the process and submit his project report to the 5^th respondent, at any rate within two months of production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that, once it is received, respondents shall finalise the matter, as expeditiously as possible and get the work completed on a priority basis.

¶46

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶47

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶48

Dr.Jess Raphael v. the Executive Enginner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Jess Raphael v. the Executive Enginner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nafeesa Vs Anitha Rani

K.Rasheed Vs the Secretary, Kaladi Grama Panchayath

Shamsudeen Rawther Vs the District Collector,Kollam

Anisha P.R. Vs Biju

Joji Vs the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.

Al-Azhar College of Arts and Science Vs Mahatma Gandhi University