Allowed

Raju Abraham M.L.A v. Assistant Executive Engineer

Kerala HC5 Jul 2013WP(C)/7105/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged inaction regarding the reconstruction of the dilapidated Vallichal bridge. The Court directed the Public Works Department to proceed with completing the bridge reconstruction without unnecessary delay to avoid public hardship escalating costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent authorities to proceed with the completion of reconstruction of Vallichal bridge.

Raju Abraham M.L.A Vs Assistant Executive… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2013/14TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶6

WP(C).No. 7105 of 2013 (S)

¶7

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS :-

¶8

RAJU ABRAHAM M.L.A., RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

K.E.ABDUL RAHIMAN, DISTRICT PRESIDENT, INDIAN UNION MUSLIM LEAGUE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.A.MOHAMMED SRI.K.I.SAGEER

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :-

¶12

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRIDGES SUB DIVISION, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.

¶13

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROAD DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.

¶14

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROAD & BRIDGES, SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶16

R1-R3 BY ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, SRI.P.A. JALEEL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.T.P. SAJID.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 7105 of 2013 (S)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS ' EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING PASSING OF VEHICLES PASSING THROUGH VALICHAL BRIDGE.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION

¶23

NO.CE/R&B/PTA/8734/2009/VOL-II, DATED 19.01.2013 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

Manjula Chellur, C.J. & K.Vinod Chandran , J.

¶29

- - - - W.P.(C) No. 7105 OF 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2013

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Manjula Chellur, C.J.

¶32

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Additional Advocate General.

¶33

This writ petition is filed by the MLA of Ranny

¶34

Constituency of Pathanamthitta District and District President of Indian Union Muslim League. According to the petitioners, the Vallichal bridge measuring 3.6 meters width in Jacob's Road in Mallappally Taluk of Pathanamthitta being in a dilapidated condition, public who passes through the said bridge coming from various places are facing hardship and inconvenience. On account of the narrow width, often there are traffic jams on the said road. Even otherwise, the condition of the said bridge is so bad and if it collapse, the entire traffic through the Jacob Road virtually will be stopped. The public then have to travel long distance to reach the nearest town at

¶35

WP(C) No. 7105 of 2013

¶36

-:2:-

¶37

Mallappally. Unless the said bridge is constructed immediately, the interest of the public at large would be jeopardised.

¶38

As against this, State filed counter affidavit bringing on record the exercise done by Public Works Department, Thiruvalla so far as this bridge is concerned. So far as this bridge connecting various places, there is no dispute on this aspect. According to the Department, the bridge was constructed 60 years back and definitely the width of the bridge is very narrow. Added to this, it is in a bad shape which definitely requires reconstruction. Therefore, the Chief Engineer in 2007 itself initiated action by inviting tenders.

¶39

Though one Mr.K.Prasanna Kumar was the lowest bidder, later on he withdrew on the ground that he could not afford the cost of the materials. Subsequently, the said work was re-tendered and awarded to one Mr.Y.Sleebachan, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6823 of 2013. The time for completion of the work was 18.04.2011. As he did not complete the entire work entrusted to him within the time frame, his contract was terminated and this became the subject matter of W.P.(C)

¶40

WP(C) No. 7105 of 2013

¶41

-:3:-

¶42

No.6823 of 2012. According to the respondent authorities, an interim order came to be passed by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition, which reads as follows:

¶43

“After hearing the learned counsel for th petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the respondents to conduct a measurement of the work already done by the petitioner before proceeding with the re-tender, with notice to the petitioner.”

¶44

At paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit the reason

¶45

for not proceeding with the reconstruction of the bridge is expressed which reads as under:

¶46

“5. It is begged to submit that pursuant to the above quoted interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.6823 of 2012, the respondents herein have filed a Counter Affidavit in the above case and the said case is yet to be boarded for further consideration. It is pertinent to point out at this juncture that though there are no prohibitory orders in W.P.(C) No.6823 of 2012 for proceeding with the construction, since the petitioner therein is disputing the extent of work actually done by him, the department thought it advisable to proceed with the remaining work after disposal of W.P.(C) No.6823 of 2012. This

¶47

WP(C) No. 7105 of 2013

¶48

-:4:-

¶49

respondent has already filed counter affidavit in the above case and immediately on disposal of W.P.(C) No.6823 of 2012, steps would be taken to complete the balance work of the bridge by having it executed through M/s.Mulamoottil Constructions. It is also begged to submit that if this Honourable Court is to permit the respondents herein to proceed with the balance work of re-construction of Vallichal bridge, the respondents herein are ready and willing to comply with the same and proceed with the completion of the balance work, since it is an absolute necessity.”

¶50

In the absence of any stay granted by the learned

¶51

Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the previous contractor-Sleebachan, we find no reason why the Department is hesitating to complete the construction. Subsequent to cancellation of tender in favour of writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6823 of 2012, respondents have already re-tendered the balance work and it has to be completed by fresh contract entered between the Department and M/s.Mulamoottil Constructions.

¶52

Having concluded way back in 2007 itself that the condition of the bridge was dangerous, we fail to understand the

¶53

WP(C) No. 7105 of 2013

¶54

-:5:-

¶55

stand of the respondent authorities why they want to wait till disposal of W.P.(C) No.6823 of 2012. By delaying the process, not only the public who need to pass through the said bridge are put to hardship and inconvenience, but the cost of construction would also go higher and higher.

¶56

In that view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authorities to proceed with the completion of reconstruction of Vallichal bridge, provided, they have complied with the interim order in W.P.(C) No.6823 of 2012, which on the face of records seems to have been complied with.

¶57

Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.

¶58

K.Vinod Chandran, Judge.

¶59

ttb/05/07

¶60

WP(C) No. 7105 of 2013

¶61

-:6:-

Raju Abraham M.L.A v. Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Abraham M.L.A v. Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Rasheed Vs Si of Police

V.T.Lawrence Vs the Corporation of Cochin

Nazimudeen Lebba Vs Y.Sandhya

P.K.Dinesan Vs State of Kerala

The State of Kerala Vs Jose

Praveen S.U. & Others Vs Dr. Davendra Kumar Dhodawat & Another