Allowed

Bipin Baby v. the Superintending Engineer

Kerala HC25 May 2016WP(C)/18233/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner, a PWD contractor, challenged the requirement to furnish a performance guarantee for a new work while amounts were still due to him from the department for work executed. The petitioner sought an order to adjust the pending dues against the security deposit. Relying on a prior identical judgment, the court allowed the plea and directed adjustment.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to adjust the amounts due to the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P5 towards the amount payable by him by way of performance guarantee.

Bipin Baby Vs the Superintending Engineer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2016/4TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 18233 of 2016 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

BIPIN BABY, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O BABY LUKE, PWD CONTRACTOR, THEKKENEERANKIL HOUSE, ARUNAPURAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 574

¶8

BY SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.

¶9

SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO

¶10

SMT.JISEMOL THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D ROADS & BRIDGES, SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033

¶13

2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS (G) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C).No. 18233 of 2016 (D)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACTOR'S REGISTRATION CARD.NO.26B/SESC/201314 OF THE PETITIONER VALID UPTO 31/03/2017

¶21

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ACCEPTANCE NO.DB/2/917/2015 DT. 29/2/2016 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

P3 TRUE COPY OF ACCEPTANCE SCHEDULE ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.DB 12-917/2015 DT. 29.2.2016 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CHECKLIST-GENERL BILL DT. 17/12/2015 FOR THE CHEQUE AMOUNT RS.19,08,033/-.

¶25

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 24/10/2011 IN WP(C).NO. 24664/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶32

-----------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No. 18233 of 2016

¶33

-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2016

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Ext.P5 final bill indicates that a sum of

¶36

Rs.19,08,033/- is due to the petitioner from the Public Works Department towards the proceeds of a work executed by him. The grievance of the petitioner is that even while the aforesaid amount is due, he is directed to furnish performance guarantee by way of security deposit for executing another work awarded to him as per Ext.P2 order.

¶37

The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the circumstances, is for a direction to the respondents to adjust the amounts due to him towards the amounts payable by him by way of performance guarantee

¶38

W.P.(C).No. 18233 of 2016

¶39

-2-

¶40

for the work awarded to him as per Ext.P2. In an identical

¶41

situation, as per Ext.P6 judgment, this Court granted to a similarly placed contractor the relief claimed by the petitioner.

¶42

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to adjust the amounts due to the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P5 towards the amount payable by him by way of performance guarantee for the work awarded as per Ext.P2 order.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶45

bpr

Bipin Baby v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin Baby v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Sherwood Technocrats Vs State of Kerala

Firdouse International Trading Co. Vs Union of India

Delta Aggregates and Sand Pvt. Ltd. Vs the General Manager

Manu J.Sivadas Vs the Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education

Pullanjiyottu Kizhakke Veettil Kunhi Parvathi Amma Vs the District Collector, Kannur

Anurag Asokan Vs the Union of India