Disposed

Krishnankutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Nov 2011WP(C)/3843/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition challenging the termination of a public works contract, the Court held that the respondent must assess the petitioner's dues for executed work after accounting for penalties and withholdings, directing payment of any excess balance within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Fourth Respondent is directed to assess whether any amount remains due to the petitioner after deducting security and penalties and release the same within six weeks.

Krishnankutty Vs State of Kerala — 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

MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 3843 of 2009(G)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

KRISHNANKUTTY , S/O. PONNAN AGED 47 YEARS, CHIRATHALAVILAMEL BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ R NAIR

¶11

SRI.P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI SMT.INDIRA RAVEENDRAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY STATE SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PWD) ROADS AND BRIDGES, PMG JUNCITON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

THE ADDITIONAL LAW SECRETARY AND LAW OFFICER, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PWD ROAD AND BRIDGES (SOUTH CIRCLE) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

R1 TO R4 BY ADV.SMT.SANGEETHA, GOVT. PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WPC NO: 3843/2009

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AWARDING THE WORK TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 02.08.2002.

¶24

P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14.09.07.

¶25

P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.11.2008.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 3843 of 2009 G

¶33

¶34

Dated this the 28^th day of November, 2011

¶35

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶36

Petitioner claims to be a contractor. By Ext.P1,

¶37

he was awarded the work of improvement and chipping in Amboori-Mayam road in Thiruvananthapuram district. Subsequently, controversy arose regarding the genuineness of the Kisan Vikas Patra that was produced by the petitioner as security and based on a complaint made by the Department, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner which is also pending.

¶38

Meanwhile, according to the respondents, the work which was only partially executed was abandoned by the petitioner. It is also alleged in the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not co-operate either in completing the work or even in measuring the work which was already done. As a result, finally, the work itself was terminated at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Counter affidavit further

¶39

W.P.(C) No.3843/2009

¶40

: 2 :

¶41

states that the petitioner was also blacklisted as per the Superintending Engineer's order dated 19.12.2006.

¶42

It is while so that the writ petition was filed, seeking an order requiring the respondents to quantify the work done by the petitioner and to pay him the amount that is due for the work executed. However, from the counter affidavit what is seen is that towards the risk and cost element as also the value of the security, a total of `13 lakhs is due from the petitioner and for the work executed this much amount will not be due to him.

¶43

Irrespective of the controversy, for the work executed by the petitioner, if any amount is due to him in excess of the amount that is to be withheld towards the risk and cost element, there is no reason why such admitted amount, if any, should not be released to the petitioner. The question whether any such amount is available to be released is a matter which only the fourth respondent or his subordinates can assess and quantify.

¶44

W.P.(C) No.3843/2009

¶45

: 3 :

¶46

Therefore, I direct the fourth respondent to assess as to whether for the work executed by the petitioner any amount is available in excess of the amount that is due towards the risk and cost element or any other liability of the petitioner in connection with Ext.P1. On such assessment, if any amount is found to be due, such amount shall be released to the petitioner. This shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶48

Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶49

aks/28/11

¶50

// True Copy //

¶51

P.A. To Judge

Krishnankutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnankutty v. State of Kerala

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

K.M.Bindhu Vs the District Collector

Divya Devarajan Vs Little Flower College of Nursing

Jose Nellissery Vs C.G.Paul

S.Mohanan Nair Vs D.Rajan Pillai & Others

K.K.Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala and Others

Mrs.Sheeba Vs Executive Engineer