Disposed

Venugopalan Nair v. the Director

Kerala HC30 May 2012WP(C)/5638/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought payment for completed contract work. Court directed respondents to expedite payment within two months if no separate sanction is needed, or if included in other works, to obtain orders and make payment within two months. Writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to forward judgment copy; respondents to expedite formalities and ensure payment within two months.

Venugopalan Nair Vs the Director — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2012/9TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 5638 of 2012 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

VENUGOPALAN NAIR, RESIDING AT VENU NIVAS, POOZHIKUNNU, CHENGHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF TOURISM, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER , HARBOUR ENGINEERING SUB DIVISION, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.K.JOHN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Kss

¶15

WPC.NO.5638/2012 D

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXT.P1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE DTD.4.9.2010 OF CONTRACT WORK TO THE PETITIONER.

¶19

EXT.P2 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.19/2010-11/AEE, DTD.8.9.2010.

¶20

EXT.P3 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DTD.24.9.2010.

¶21

EXT.P4 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL BILL DTD.24.9.2010 BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P5 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.24.9.2010 BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P6 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE NOTICE DTD.24.1.2012 TO THE RESPONDENTS.

¶24

EXT.P7 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.17.2.2012 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

 T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.5638/2012-D
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Dated this the 30th day of May, 2012

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner had entered into a contract with the respondents for the work, namely, “TRP – Tourism – Additional Protection to the Walkway at Veli Beach - Supply and stacking of GraniteStones” for an estimated cost of Rs.2,56,080/-. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay the amount due on final bill and release the security deposit within a time fixed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had completed the work as on 24/09/2010 and even after the expiry of a long period, no steps have been taken in the matter.

¶32

Learned Government Pleader on getting instructions submitted that the matter is now pending before the Government since revised administrative sanction is required as the total amount of work has exceeded the limit.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that as far as the petitioner is concerned, the total amount is Rs.2,56,080/- and, therefore, a separate sanction for the revised estimate is not required in the case of the petitioner. This aspect will

¶34

W.P.(C). No.5638/2012 -:2:-

¶35

be verified by the first respondent and, if no separate sanction is required, as far as the work executed by the petitioner is concerned, steps will be taken in the matter. But, if it is included among various other works and administrative sanction is an essential condition for making payment as regards the petitioner also, then the first respondent will expedite the matter with the Government and he will see that the necessary formalities are completed, orders are obtained by the Government and payments are effected to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The petitioner will forward a copy of the writ petition along with a certified copy of this Judgment to the first respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶38

ms

Venugopalan Nair v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venugopalan Nair v. the Director

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

Mohamad Niyas.T.a Vs Mahatma Gandhi University and Another

V.Manikandan Vs State of Kerala

Rajeesh Babu Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Loona.P.K Vs Aboobacker

Veerabhadra Gounder.R. Vs Sub Registrar

V.Murukan Vs the Tahsildar, Kuttanad