Disposed

S.Gopalakrishnan Nair v. K.W..a.

Kerala HC4 Feb 2016WP(C)/17515/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by a government contractor seeking mandatory payment of an admitted bill amount. The court observed that the Water Authority had not yet obtained government sanction and directed settlement of the amount only after sanction is obtained.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Authority to settle the bill amount without delay as and when government sanction is obtained.

S.Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs K.W..a. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/15TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 17515 of 2006 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

S. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, GOVT. CONTRACTOR, HARI NIVAS, MUDAVAN MUGAL, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, SRI.K.I.SAGEER.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶13

BY ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 17515 of 2006 (I)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17/02/1999 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/10/2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/08/2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/06/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08/02/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05/04/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29/05/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 29/08/2002 IN O.P. NO.20129/2002.

¶27

EXT.P9 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/05/2005 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3148/2005 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

¶28

EXT.P10 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/05/2005 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN S.L.P.(C) NO.9780/2005 AND CONNECTED CASES.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶34

***************************************************************************** W.P.(C) No.17515 of 2006

¶35

****************************************************************************** Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioner approached this Court seeking following

¶38

reliefs:

¶39

i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to disbursing the admitted bill amount due to the petitioner in connection with the satisfactory execution of work awarded as per the Agreement No.15/SE/PHCK/90-91 dated 27.7.90, with interest at the treasury rate with effect from the date of commissioning the facility provided by the petitioner;

¶40

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents 3 and 2 to consider and dispose of Exts.P1 to P7 representations, forthwith.

¶41

W.P.(C) No.17515 of 2006 2

¶42

It appears that before execution of the work,

¶43

the Water Authority had not obtained sanction from the

¶44

Government.

¶45

It is submitted by learned Standing Counsel

¶46

that the Water Authority has approached the Government for

¶47

Sanction.

¶48

The above submission is recorded. Therefore, this

¶49

Court is of the view that as and when sanction is obtained, the

¶50

bill amount due to the petitioner shall be settled by the Water

¶51

Authority without any further delay.

¶52

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶55

S.Gopalakrishnan Nair v. K.W..a.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Gopalakrishnan Nair v. K.W..a.

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

P.K.Abraham Vs State of Kerala

C.v.Jayadas Vs State of Kerala

K.Sadanandan Vs N.Shekharan Nair

V.P.Ajith Vs the Tahsildar, Devikulam

Vineeth K.V. Vs the Kerala Sangeetha Nadaka Academy

Krishnan Vs Special Tahsildar