In a writ petition seeking balance payment under a service agreement, the High Court held that the matter involves disputed facts and limitation issues better suited for a Civil Court. The writ petition was dismissed.
The writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/23RD KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 4367 of 2009 (T)
PETITIONER(S):
D. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O. DAMODARAN PILLAI, AGED 70 YEARS, RETIRED COUNCIL SECRETARY, VALIYAZHIKAM, THEVALLI, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM.
2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENTS, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUNDS AUDIT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS, SC. R2 & R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.RENIL ANTO.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 4367 of 2009 (T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
K. Vinod Chandran, J
---------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.4367 of 2009-T
Dated this the 14th day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved with the refusal of the
Corporation to pay amounts as per Exhibit P3 agreement. The petitioner relies on Exhibits P1 and P2 to contend that the Corporation is liable to pay the amounts due as per Exhibit P3.
The petitioner was paid 80% of the amount. The petitioner's claim in the writ petition is for payment of the balance amount.
WP(C) No.4367 of 2009 - 2 -
have approached the Civil Court. However, the writ petition was admitted in the year 2009 and was pending before this Court. It is also to be noticed that the Corporation, even according to the petitioner, has issued Exhibits P7 and P8 notices asking him to appear before the Corporation so as to clear the audit objections.
WP(C) No.4367 of 2009 - 3 -
ideally the petitioner ought to have approached the Civil Court; and as of now, the period of limitation is also over. The agreement is dated 18.07.2005 and the petitioner ought to have approached the Civil Court immediately after the alleged completion of the work, i.e., even prior to the institution of the writ petition. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant reservation also on that count.
The writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
Vku/-
[ true copy ]
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can adjudicate upon the disputed facts regarding incomplete work under an agreement in a money claim.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the remedy of approaching the Civil Court has been bypassed.
Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed when the period of limitation for civil remedy has expired.
D. Gopalakrishnan Nair
Corporation of Kollam
Secretary to the Govt., Department of Local Self Governments
Director, Local Funds Audit
K.Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
