Disposed

Sharafudheen v. Managing Director, Roads & Bridges Corpo

Kerala HC18 May 2012WP(C)/13707/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses a writ petition challenging recovery proceedings for dues arising from a terminated toll collection contract. The court held the dispute involved factual questions unsuitable for writ adjudication but directed the first respondent to expeditiously consider the petitioner's requests for waiver.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 1st respondent to consider representations for waiver of dues within one month and maintain status quo until then.

Sharafudheen Vs Managing Director, Roads & Bridges Corpo — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 13707 of 2011(K)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

SHARAFUDHEEN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.UMMAR, THOLIRAKKAPALLIYALIL HOUSE, POST MELEPATTAMBI, PATTAMBI - 679 306, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED., KOCHI - 682 025.

¶14

2. GENERAL MANAGER, ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED., KOCHI - 682 025.

¶15

3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY. TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPALAM - 679 101.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYA KUMAR, SC, RBDCK R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Kss

¶19

WPC.NO.13707/2011 K

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

P1: COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DTD.2/2/2011 (TALUK FILE NO.R5-2011/3421/9/400) ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

P2: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 7/03/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶25

R1(A): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE PETITIONER.

¶26

R1(B): COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITONER IN AUGUST 2007.

¶27

R1(C): COPY OF COMMUNICATION OF THE PETITIONER TO THIS RESPONDENT DTD. 19/09/2007.

¶28

R1(D): COPY OF REPLY BY THIS RESPONDENT DTD. 1/10/2007.

¶29

R1(E): COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT DTD. 30/10/2007.

¶30

R1(F): COPY OF COMMUNICATION OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 31/01/08.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO.13707 OF 2011

¶35

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

¶36

Dated this the 26^th day of July, 2011

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

Petitioner was awarded a contract for toll collection at Pulamanthol Bridge for the period from 1/6/2007 to 31/5/2008 for a total contract amount of `31,86,000/-. Default was committed in the payment of dues as specified in the agreement between the parties, the details of which has been furnished in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Finally, by Ext.R1(e), the contract was terminated, when despite notice, petitioner failed to discharge the liability.

¶39

Thereafter, he was issued Ext.R1(f) notice intimating the dues. Payment was not made and after adjustment of the amounts deposited by the petitioner, balance due from the petitioner was quantified at `6,51,923/-. Again notice demanding payment was made. It was not complied with and at that stage the writ petition was filed to avoid recovery proceedings.

¶40

According to the petitioner, he could not collect sufficient amounts for payment of the contract amount and he suffered huge loss. It is also his case that when after termination

¶41

WPC No. 13707/11

¶42

:2 :

¶43

re-auction was held and contract was awarded for the subsequent period from 1/11/2007 to 31/5/2008, respondents received substantial amounts, as a result of which, no actual damages was incurred by them. Therefore, it is contended that there is no justification for the demand now raised.

¶44

However, the counter affidavit indicates otherwise and the respondents have also given the basis of the quantification of the damages, which is now sought to be realised from the petitioner.

¶45

In my view, this essentially is a contractual issue and involves disputed questions of fact, which are incapable of resolution in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere.

¶46

Be that as it may, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by filing Ext.P2 representation and Ext.R1(c) request, he has sought the indulgence of the respondents for waiving the amount now sought to be recovered from him. It is stated that, in similar cases, such indulgence has been shown.

¶47

Taking note of the submission made by the learned

¶48

WPC No. 13707/11

¶49

:3 :

¶50

counsel for the petitioner regarding the pendency of the aforesaid representations and without expressing anything on the merits of his contentions, I direct the 1^st respondent to consider the said representations, which shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month of production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that until then, status quo shall be maintained.

¶51

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶52

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶53

Sharafudheen v. Managing Director, Roads & Bridges Corpo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharafudheen v. Managing Director, Roads & Bridges Corpo

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

Jose Jacob Vs the Secretary,R.T.a.

M.v.Ibrahim Vs the Intelligence Officer

Ravindran Vs Tahsildar, Thaliparamba

V.Harilal Vs State of Kerala

N.P.Abdul Salam Vs the Guruvayoor Municipality

Abdul Kalam K.G. Vs Cochin Corporation, Rep. by Its Secretary