Allowed

Joseph Mathew v. Superintending Engineer

Kerala HC14 Feb 2014WP(C)/2098/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges delayed payment of a final bill for construction of a culvert and drain. The court directed the State to issue a letter of credit and pay the petitioner expeditiously, setting an outer limit of three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State of Kerala to issue a letter of credit and effect payment to the petitioner expeditiously, within three months of producing the certified judgment copy.

Joseph Mathew Vs Superintending Engineer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/25TH MAGHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 2098 of 2014 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

JOSEPH MATHEW, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.V.P.MATHEW, VATTAMAKKAL HOUSE, VATTAMAKKAL ROAD MUNDAMVELI P.O., MOOLAMKUZHY, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PWD ROAD AND BUILDING DIVISION, ALUVA CIRCLE, ALUVA PIN - 683 006.

¶11

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, KAKKAD DIVISION, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682 030.

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SUB DIVISION, ERNAKULAM, THRIKKAKARA P.O. KOCHI - 682 021, PIN - 682 030.

¶13

4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SECTION, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI PIN - 682 002.

¶14

SRI.K.C.VINCENT,GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

RKC

¶17

WP(C).No. 2098 of 2014 (J) ---------------------------

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR EXTENTION OF TIME OF COMPLETION OF WORK AND THE SANCTION THEREOF

¶21

EXHIBIT P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE

¶22

EXHIBIT P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMA

¶23

EXHIBIT P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPARATIVE STATEMENT DULY APPROVED BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

RKC

TRUE COPY

PA TO JUDGE

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶29

W.P.(C).No.2098 of 2014

¶30

Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2014

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The work of construction of culvert and drain in KumbalangiPerumpadappu road was awarded to the petitioner. The time fixed for completion of the work was six months from 12.4.2012. Later the time for performance was extended up to 20.3.2013 at the petitioner's request. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that though the work was completed on 20.3.2013 and the final bill was submitted, till date the amount claimed under the final bill has not been paid. In this writ petition the petitioner prays for an order directing the respondents to settle and disburse his claims immediately.

¶33

A statement dated 1.2.2014 has been filed by the third respondent/Assistant Executive Engineer. In paragraph 6 thereof it is stated that the petitioner's bill has been cleared for payment and that as soon as a letter of credit is received from the Government, payment will be effected. A reading of the statement would indicate that the delay in settling the bill was on account of the delay on the part of the contractor in executing the supplemental agreement. It is stated that the supplemental agreement was executed only on 28.12.2013. In the light of the stand taken by the third respondent

¶34

W.P.(C).No.2098 of 2014

¶35

..2..

¶36

in the statement filed by him the petitioner need not any longer entertain the apprehension that payment will not be effected expeditiously.

¶37

I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the State of Kerala to issue the letter of credit and to effect payment to the petitioner, expeditiously and in any event within an outer limit of three months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition complete in all aspects before the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department.

¶38

sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.

¶39

rkc.

Joseph Mathew v. Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Mathew v. Superintending Engineer

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

Ashoman E.S Vs a.Unnikrishnan

Siby Paul Vs Cletus K.Joseph

K.M. Shaji Vs Cletus K. Joseph

S.Manikandan Vs P.Venugopalan Nair

Sarojini Vs the Joint Director

Asok Kumar Vs Superintending Engineer