Partly allowed

V Mohammed Basheer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Dec 2016WP(C)/26010/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a PWD contractor, sought release of due amounts under a contract for Tirur Town Hall renovation. Respondents cited pending vigilance proceedings. The court directed competent authorities to decide the pending application within a month and release amounts within two months if due.

What did the court decide?

Direction to competent authority to decide application for release of amount within one month; further direction to release amount within two months if due.

V Mohammed Basheer Vs State of Kerala — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 26010 of 2016 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

V MOHAMMED BASHEER AGED 54 YEARS, S/O IMBICHI BAVA, PWD CONTRACTOR, REG NO 318A, SHAJI COTTAGE, KARUVANTHIRUTHY P.O, FEROKE, CALICUT 673 631.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G SRI.DIPU JAMES

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶11

2. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL TIRUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, TIRUR, MALAPURAM DISTRICT 676 101.

¶12

3. TIRUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 101.

¶13

4. SECRETARY, TIRUR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 101.

¶14

R3& R4 BY SRI.E.C.BINEESH, SC, TIRUR MUNICIPALITY BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RON BASTIAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 26010 of 2016 (A)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT NO 119/2014-15 DATED 30-07-2014 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20-05-2016 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF M-BOOK DATED 18.01.2016

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶25

W.P.(C) No.26010 of 2016

¶26

Dated this the 14^th day of December, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Petitioner herein is an A class PWD Contractor and he was

¶29

awarded with several works under the Government departments and agencies. Respondents 2 to 4 decided to renovate and do extensive maintenance works to the Tirur Town Hall. Petitioner was awarded with the said work. However, according to the petitioner, final bill amount due under the contract is remaining due to him. Since respondents did no release the amount, petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 before respondents 2 to 4 on 20.5.2016, which is pending consideration. Petitioner has also produced a copy of M-book stating that the payments due to him are approved by the appropriate authority. A statement is filed by the respondents 2 to 4 admitting the work carried out by the petitioner, however, stating that there are certain proceedings pending before the Vigilance department on a complaint received.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶31

W.P.(C) No.26010 of 2016

¶32

¶33

Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4, learned Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

¶34

Since Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner seeking release of the amount due under the contract and since there is a statement made by respondents 2 to 4 that a complaint was preferred before the Vigilance in respect of the said work, without expressing anything on merit, there will be a direction to the competent among respondents 2 to 4 to take a decision on Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

If it is found that amounts are due , the same shall be released to the petitioner within a further period of two months.

¶36

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

SHAJI P. CHALY,JUDGE

¶39

dlk/14/12/

V Mohammed Basheer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Mohammed Basheer 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

P.J.Baby Vs State of Kerala

Albert Johnson Vs Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

M/S. Hotel Highway Palace Vs Indian Railways Catering & Tourism Corporation Limited

K.Sadanandan Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Ramesan Vs the District Collector & Others

Pramod Vs District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram