Dismissed

Shaji Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2016WP(C)/39943/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a contractor facing delay in bill release for a road package, filed a writ petition. The court directed the 4th respondent to provide necessary funds within three months to enable release of bill amounts by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directing 4th respondent to provide funds within 3 months for release of bill amounts to petitioner by 3rd respondent.

Shaji Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/14TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 39943 of 2015 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

SHAJI MATHEW, PALATHARA HOUSE, THURUTHY P.O, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.JOMY GEORGE SRI.DEEPAK MOHAN SMT.A.MINI JOSEPH KUM.M .ANJU THOMAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶11

2. CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (KSRRDA), TC 885, CSI BUILDING, PULIMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶12

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, KERALA STATE RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (KSRRDA), DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM 686 001.

¶13

4. DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT ROOM NO. 278, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶14

5. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, RURAL CONNECTIVITY (RC ) DIVISION, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.K.SHERIN R4 TO R5 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN, CGC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

WP(C).No. 39943 of 2015 (P)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 31.03.2015 HAVING NO.242(CE)-KSRRDA/2014-15.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT FOR EXHIBIT P1.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.11.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶30

================== W.P.(C).No. 39943 of 2015

¶31

==================

¶32

Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2016

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The petitioner is a contractor. The petitioner has

¶35

undertaken the work of Package No. KR-11/39 Parakkal Mangadu West Road. The petitioner approached this Court on account of delay in releasing the bill amount.

¶36

It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader

¶37

that the fund has to be provided by the 4^th respondent. In that view of the matter, the following directions are issued.

¶38

If the 4^th respondent has to provide necessary fund, the

¶39

same shall be made available within 3 months. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent shall release the bill amount to the petitioner without any delay.

¶40

If there is any seniority to be followed for any work based on the fund provided by the Central Government, the seniority shall be followed.

¶41

The writ petition is disposed of, as above. sd/-

¶42

sab A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶43

: 2 :-

Shaji Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji Mathew 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

M.K.Rajendran Vs Director,Kirtads

Official Receiver Vs Special Tahsildar

Suresh Kumar.G.K. Vs Rajamma

Binoy Vs Executive Engineer (Civil)

Sunitha Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram

Bharathi.S.Poduval Vs Corporation of Cochin