Dismissed

G.Sali v. the Executive Engineer

Kerala HC18 Oct 2016RP/901/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed this review petition challenging an order releasing payment to a contractor conditioned on the conclusion of a vigilance enquiry within two months. The court held that the petitioners lacked locus standi as the matter was an issue between the State and the contractor.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed holding that the review petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the release of amounts to the writ petitioner.

G.Sali Vs the Executive Engineer — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/26TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 901 of 2016 (N)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 39932/2015 DATED 03-03-2016.

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS/3RD PARTIES:

¶8

1. G. SALI, S/O. GOVINDAN. K., CHETHANA, KAYAMKULAM P.O., KRISHNAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA-690 502.

¶9

2. K.M. ISMAIL, S/O. K.A. MUSTAFA, USHUS, RANDATHANI P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 510.

¶10

3. R. SANJEEV, S/O. R. RAJENDRAN ASAN, SREESAILAM, WEST FORT, MAVELIKKARA-690 101.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.C.HARIKUMAR, SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN.

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & PETITIONER:

¶13

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, MECHANICAL DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶14

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION (MECHANICAL), 5TH FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶15

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MECHANICAL, IRRIGATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

¶17

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶18

¶19

5. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶20

RP.No. 901 of 2016 (N)

¶21

6. SEABLUE SHIPYARD LTD., 22/136B, NEAR AQUINAS COLLEGE, EDAKOCHI, KOCHI-682 010, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.O.C. JOHN.

¶22

R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.S. GOPINATHAN. R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN.

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

rs.

¶25

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶26

R.P. No. 901 of 2016

¶27

in W.P.(C) No. 39932 of 2015

¶28

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2016

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

1.This review petition is filed by third parties. The review petitioners were the officials of the Irrigation Department, who are accused along with the writ petitioner in a vigilance enquiry. A crime has been registered as V.C.No.9/2015 of VACB, Alappuzha.

¶31

2.The writ petitioner was a contractor. He approached this Court for release of the amounts as per the final bills submitted for the work done by him. Taking note of the fact that the work was completed two years ago, this Court directed disbursement of the amounts to the petitioner on furnishing bank guarantee if the vigilance enquiry is not concluded within two months.

¶32

3.The grievance of the review petitioners is that the bank guarantee of the writ petitioner would not be sufficient

¶33

R.P. No. 901 of 2016

¶34

..2..

¶35

as the same would expire within a period of six months. According to them, on failure to renew the bank guarantee, it will result in huge loss to them, if, ultimately, culpability of the writ petitioner is found in the enquiry. I refrain from accepting the said contention of the review petitioners in as much as they have no locus standi in the matter of releasing amounts to a contractor/writ petitioner. It is an issue between the State and a contractor. In order to protect the interests of the State, this Court ordered release of the amounts to the writ petitioner on furnishing bank guarantee if the vigilance enquiry is not concluded within two months.

¶36

4.In that view of the matter, I find no apparent error on the face of the record. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed.

¶37

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶38

bka/-

G.Sali v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sali v. the Executive 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

T.P Reghu Kumar Vs V.J Shamsudeen

Ambi. T Vs K. Lawrance

Reshina George Vs M.S Jaya

Lonappan Vs Mohanan

Sarala Devi Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner

M.Sudheesh Vs the President Cannanore Co-Op. Hospotal