Dismissed

Devassia P.D. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2014WP(C)/2651/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction to execute a work agreement for pond construction. The petitioner was delayed due to illness but failed to enter an agreement. The respondent awarded the work to the next lowest bidder. The judge dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Relief sought was to direct second respondent to permit execution of agreement or consider representations.

Devassia P.D. Vs State of Kerala — 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

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/14TH MAGHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 2651 of 2014 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

DEVASSIA P.D., PULIMOOOTTIL HOUSE, RAJAKKAD PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 686 566.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM SRI.PAUL K.PETER

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION CENTRAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD 682 030.

¶12

R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Kss

¶15

WP(C).No. 2651 of 2014 (F)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 10/5/2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KUTTANADU DEVELOPMENT CIRCLE.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/12/2013 WITH NO. D4-1158/2013 (K-1) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶20

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 26/12/2013 ISSUED BY DR.SAROJINI KUNJAMMA , RETD.MEDICAL OFFICER.

¶21

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22/1/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/1/2014 SEND BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

P.N.RAVINDRAN , J.

¶29

--------------------------W.P.(C) No.2651 of 2014

¶30

Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2014

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The work of construction of a pond at Annayarthodu Bhagam in Sy.No.67/1 in Ward N.8 of Pampadumpara Panchayat in Idukki District was awarded to the petitioner at 5% above the estimate rate less the cost of department materials and market rated items for an accepted PAC of Rs.1758423/-. After the work was awarded to the petitioner, the petitioner was asked to appear in the office of the Superintending Engineer on or before 5.1.2014 or within 20 days from the date of registration of the letter with the required stamp papers worth Rs.100/- and required security and performance guarantee for the purpose of executing the agreement. Ext.P2 is the copy of the letter dated 16.12.2013 sent in that regard to the petitioner. The petitioner did not respond. After the period stipulated in Ext.P2 letter expired, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 22.1.2014 to the Superintending Engineer requesting him to condone the delay in executing the agreement and for permission to execute the agreement. He contended that he was bed ridden during the period from 26.12.2013 to 22.1.2014 and that

¶33

W.P.(C) No.2651/2014

¶34

¶35

was the reason why he could not execute the agreement. The petitioner did not however set out the date on which he received Ext.P2 letter. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for an order directing the second respondent to permit him to execute the agreement and to undertake the work. In the alternative the petitioner prays for an order directing the second respondent to consider the request made by him in Exts.P4 and P5 representations within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶36

When the writ petition came up for hearing on 27.1.2014, the learned Government Pleader was requested to get instructions. When the writ petition came up for further hearing today, Smt.Anita Ravindran, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that in view of the failure on the part of the petitioner to enter into an agreement, negotiations were held and the work was awarded to the next lowest bidder and a letter in that regard was sent to the next lowest bidder on 20.1.2014. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. In the absence of any case for the petitioner that he did not receive the original of Ext.P2 letter in time, I find no reason or justification in granting the relief prayed for by the petitioner. That apart, even assuming that the petitioner was bed ridden, nothing prevented him from sending a letter by post to the

¶37

W.P.(C) No.2651/2014

¶38

¶39

second respondent informing him of the said fact and requesting for enlargement of time. In such circumstances, if the second respondent proceeded to award the work to the next lowest bidder after negotiation, no exception can be taken to the same.

¶40

I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. It

¶41

fails and is dismissed.

¶42

P.N.RAVINDRAN,

¶43

(JUDGE)

¶44

vps

Devassia P.D. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devassia P.D. 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

M.J.Francis Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Rangorath Gokul Prasad Vs District Collector

Joseph John Vs Land Revenue Commissioner

Jose Vs the Sub Registrar

Dr.Arun Preeth v. Vs State of Kerala

Paulose Vs the State of Kerala