Allowed

A.K.Varkey v. Muvattupuzha Municipality

Kerala HC10 Feb 2012WP(C)/30351/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contractor filed a writ petition seeking payment for an abandoned anganvadi construction project. The Municipality, represented by the Secretary and Chairman, failed to file a counter affidavit or appear. The Court directed the Municipality to compute and release the payment for completed work within two months, leaving the interest claim open.

What did the court decide?

Directed the municipality to compute and release the amount payable for work done within two months from receipt of this judgment.

A.K.Varkey Vs Muvattupuzha Municipality — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/21ST MAGHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 30351 of 2008 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

A.K.VARKEY, EDAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHUPADY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY,MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, MUVATTUPUZHA

¶12

3. THE CHAIRMAN, MUVATTUPUZHA, MUNICIPALITY, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶13

R1 TO R3 BY SRI.V.M.KURIAN SC FOR MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1002-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MJL

WPCNO:30351/2008

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT	P1 : COPY OF THE 04/06/07 TO	LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT	P2 : COPY OF THE 22-08-07 TO	LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT	P3 : COPY OF THE 10-10-07 TO	LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT	P4 : COPY OF THE TO EXHIBIT P	RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT 3 LETTER
EXT	P5 : COPY OF THE 25-03-2008 T	LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON O THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT	P6 : COPY OF THE 05-08-08 TO	LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT	P7 : COPY OF THE 19-08-08 TO	LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES
EXT	P8 : COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF E	ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD EVIDENCING THE XHIBIT P7 BY DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES
EXT	P9 : COPY OF THE RESPONDENT W PETITIONER	MEASUREMENT BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE 1ST ITH REGARD TO THE WORK DONE BY THE
EXT	P10 : COPY OF THE REGARD TO TH PETITIONER	PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH E CONSTRUCTION ENTRUSTED WITH THE

¶20

RESPONDENTS'EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P A TO JUDGE

MJL

MJL

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶26

W.P.C.No.30351 of 2008

¶27

Dated this the 10th day of February, 2012

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner is a contractor, who was awarded a work contract for construction of an 'Anganvadi building'. After executing the agreement 145/2006 dated 2/1/2007, the land in question was handed over to the petitioner, who commenced the work by taking necessary steps. However, by the time the basement was completed, the Municipality sought to back out from the decision already taken to have the Anganvadi constructed and took Ext.P10 decision, whereby the work was abandoned. Pursuant to the intimation given to the petitioner in this regard, the petitioner stopped the work. But by this time, the petitioner had already invested much amounts for construction of the basement; the particulars of which, particularly, as to the measurements are given in Ext.P9. The grievance of the petitioner is that the demands to effect the payment with respect to the works already performed before the same was cancelled by the Municipality, only fell in the deaf ears of the Municipality which made him to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶30

This writ petition was admitted by this Court, on

¶31

15/10/2008, ordering notice by speed post. Despite completion of

¶32

W.P.C.No.30351 of 2008

¶33

¶34

service of notice, no counter affidavit has been filed so far. When the matter came up before consideration before the Court on the last occasion, i.e., on 23/1/2012, there was no representation for the respondents. Still, the matter was adjourned by two weeks for enabling the respondent Municipality to file counter affidavit in the meanwhile. Even today, the position is not different and there is no representation for the Municipality.

¶35

In the said circumstances, this Court finds that there is no point in keeping the proceedings pending any further. Accordingly, the Municipality is directed to compute the amount payable to the petitioner to the extent the construction has been effected by the petitioner as given in Ext.P9 and the due amount shall be released to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respondent Municipality for further steps . The issue regarding the claim for interest is left open.

¶36

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶37

A.K.Varkey v. Muvattupuzha Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.K.Varkey v. Muvattupuzha Municipality

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

S.Venugopal Vs Dr.Sivadas T and Another

S.Girija Vs Kerala State Development Corporation for

V.P.Moideen Vs Kalamassery Municipality

T.Shahinsha Vs Kayamkuam Municipality

P.a.Habeeb Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

C.K.Lalu Vs Commissioner of Excise