Disposed

Raghavan Nair v. the District Collector, Kozhikode

Kerala HC24 May 2016WP(C)/18053/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge acknowledged the limited prayer of the petitioner to consider a subsequent representation regarding payment amounts due. The court directed the first respondent to consider the representation, afford an opportunity for hearing, and pass orders within two months without deciding the substantive merits. (56 words)

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders after affording an opportunity of hearing within two months.

Raghavan Nair Vs the District Collector… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2016/3RD JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 18053 of 2016 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

RAGHAVAN NAIR, P W D CONTRACTOR, "RAGAM", REC, MALAYAMMA P.O., KOZHIKODE.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

¶11

2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SECTION, BEYPORE,

¶12

KOZHIKODE-673 032.

¶13

3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SUB DIVISION, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

¶14

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

¶15

5. STATE OF KERALA,

¶16

REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

WP(C).No. 18053 of 2016 (F)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.DC 02/2012/13 DATED 12.11.2012 ALONG WITH ORDER NO.D6-42997/12 DATED 12.11.2012.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.AE/BS/4/13-14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 3.6.13.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE MLA TO THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 13.7.2013.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19.6.13 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 12.6.2013.

¶28

EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 5.7.2013.

¶29

EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 4.6.2013.

¶30

EXHIBIT P8: THE COPY OF THE REPLY FROM THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 27.1.14. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 3.5.14.

¶31

EXHIBTI P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PASSED BY DLEC KOZHIKODE DATED 22.8.14.

¶32

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.25063/2015 DATED 14.9.2015.

¶33

EXHIBIT P12: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D6 42997/12 DATED 3.2.16. EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 29.2.2016.

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶40

-----------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No. 18053 of 2016

¶41

-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2016

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for

¶44

the petitioner, when this matter was taken up for admission

¶45

today, is for a direction to the first respondent to consider

¶46

Ext.P13 representation preferred by him. The petitioner is a contractor and the amounts due to him in respect of a work has been sanctioned for payment by the first respondent as per Ext.P12 proceedings. Ext.P13 representation has been preferred by the petitioner before the first respondent stating that the amounts arrived at as due to the petitioner is not correct and that he is entitled to get some more

¶47

amounts.

¶48

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

¶49

W.P.(C).No. 18053 of 2016 -2-

¶50

the case, I deem it appropriate to grant the limited prayer sought by the petitioner.

¶51

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing

¶52

the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P13 representation, after affording the petitioner an opportunity for hearing, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is at liberty to produce a certified copy of this judgment for compliance before the first respondent.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶55

bpr

Raghavan Nair v. the District Collector, Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghavan Nair v. the District Collector, Kozhikode

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

Major Arcbishop and 2 Others Vs P.a.Lalan Tharakan and 12 Others

T.M.Prabhakara Kaimal Vs Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority

Johnson Vs State of Kerala

Akshay C.R Vs Centralboardof Secondary Education

M/S.Sherwood Technocrats Vs State of Kerala

Firdouse International Trading Co. Vs Union of India