Allowed

P.B.Ramachandran v. Chalakudy Municipality

Kerala HC13 Feb 2012WP(C)/552/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the inaction of the Chalakudy Municipality in considering the petitioner's representation for sanction of a part bill. The Court directed the competent authority to consider the representation and decide within one month.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to produce Ext.P2 before the competent authority for consideration and decision within one month.

P.B.Ramachandran Vs Chalakudy Municipality — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/24TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 552 of 2012 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.B.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.P.P.BHASKARAN, PALLATHERY HOUSE, MATTATHUR P.O., KODAKARA ,TRICHUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHALAKUDY P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT, PIN -680 307.

¶11

BY ADV.SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

WP(C)NO.552/2012

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶17

P1 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.1/2010-11 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 21/05/2010.

¶18

P2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 22/07/2011.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J.

------------------------------WP(C).NO. 552 of 2012

¶26

Dated this the 13th day of February, 2012

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Petitioner is a contractor who had undertaken certain

¶29

works of the respondent Municipality, by virtue of Ext.P1 agreement executed. According to the petitioner his request for sanction of a part bill has not been considered by the respondent Municipality, inspite of submissions of Ext.P2. Hence the petitioner is seeking a direction for consideration and disposal of Ext.P2.

¶30

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality contended that from the contents of Ext.P2 itself it is clear that the petitioner had exceeded the works proposed under the estimate, and he is seeking a revision of the estimate as well as extension of the period of the agreement which cannot be considered.

¶31

However, I am of the view that these are all matters which need be considered by the respondent. Since Ext.P2 representation is pending before the respondent, I am of the view

¶32

WP(C).552 /2012

¶33

¶34

that interest of justice will be achieved by issuing a direction to the competent authority within the respondent Municipality to consider Exts.P2 and to take appropriate decision on the request.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of directing the authority concerned in the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 and to take appropriate decision in the matter at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE

¶37

pmn/

¶38

WP(C).552 /2012 3

P.B.Ramachandran v. Chalakudy Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.B.Ramachandran v. Chalakudy Municipality

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

B.Vikraman Nair Vs State of Kerala

Jayalal L.V Vs State of Kerala

Prasanna.P. Vs Special Tahasildar

K.O.Mathai Vs Secretary

Joji Thomas Vs State Ofkerala

Santhi Binu Vs Thiruvalla Municipality