Allowed

R. Soman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jul 2012WP(C)/6258/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking direction to pay a balance of Rs.1.64 lakhs with interest, the High Court held that since the petitioner executed the work, he must be paid. The Court directed the Municipality to measure the work, quantify the dues, and make payment within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Municipality directed to measure work, quantify dues, and pay balance within three months.

R. Soman Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2012/12TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 6258 of 2012 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

R. SOMAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN, KAVINMOOLA, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU MULLARAVILA, PERUMBAZHUTHOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. NEYYATTINKARA MUNICIPALITY

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE

¶13

NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 014.

¶14

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶15

NEYYATTINKARA MUNICIPALITY, NEYYATTINKARA P.O.

¶16

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶17

R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S. SUDHIR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶19

ON 03-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

...2/-

¶22

WP(C).No. 6258 of 2012 (F)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶25

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE BILL PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶26

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.1.2012 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.6258 of 2012

¶33

Dated this the 3^rd day of July, 2012

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Petitioner says that he was awarded the work construction of side protection wall and culvert and forming the Muttakadu-Kunjukulangara Road by the respondent Municipality. His case is that he executed the work and that a partial payment of Rs.2,00,000/- also has been made. In this writ petition, what the petitioner seeks is a direction to the respondent Municipality to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,64,673/- together with interest.

¶36

However, on behalf of the respondent Municipality, submission made by the standing counsel is that the work in question was awarded to the petitioner for the year 20082009. It is also his case that the petitioner did not complete the work and that extension of time was granted. It is also stated that the work executed by the petitioner was not measured or that the amount, if any, still due to the petitioner, has not been quantified.

¶37

W.P.(C).No.6258/2012

¶38

: 2 :

¶39

Irrespective of whether there was any delay, if the petitioner has executed the work, he should be paid for what he has done. Therefore, it is for the Municipality to measure the quantity of work, quantify the amount due and pay the same. This the Municipality shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶41

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶42

R. Soman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Soman 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.D.Rajendra Babu Vs Perumpalam Grama Panchayat

Sukumari Vs Corporation of Thrissur

K.G.Thomas Vs the Corporation of Kochi

Vallil Azeez Vs the Meppayoor Grama Panchayath

B.Kasthuri.a.Pai Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan A.K. Vs Chief Registrar of Birth and Death