Disposed

Nizamudeen a v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jan 2016WP(C)/487/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by a PWD contractor seeking a direction to include a first part bill with the seniority of February 2015, considering the delay was not caused by the petitioner but due to rectification requests, and directed the Second Respondent to accept this direction.

What did the court decide?

The Second Respondent was directed to include the petitioner's first part bill in the seniority list of the month of 02/2015.

Nizamudeen a Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | 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 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/23RD POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 487 of 2016 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-----------------------

¶8

NIZAMUDEEN A., MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. THOPPIL CONTRACTORS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, THOPPI BUILDINGS, THOLIKUZHI, KILIMANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 614.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

-------------------------

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01.

¶13

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS AND BRIDGES), PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶14

3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ROADS AND BRIDGES (SC), PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶15

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ROADS DIVISION, P.M.G. JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.K.SHERIN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

msv/

¶19

WP(C).No. 487 of 2016 (I)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. DB4-2760/13 DT. 23/9/13 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER REGARDING THE ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER

¶23

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DB4-2670/13 DT. 24/9/13 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ACCEPTING THE TENDER OF PETITIONER

¶24

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶25

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 11/9/15 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶32

================== W.P.(C).No. 487 of 2016

¶33

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

¶34

Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2016

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The petitioner is a PWD contractor. He undertakes the work

¶37

of providing of BM and BC to Vijayamohini Mills - Punnakkamughal - Mudavanmughal Road and Construction of Side drain near Mudavanmughal. He submits that the first part bill for the work is on 28.2.2015 as per the inward No.942 dated 28.2.2015 and registered with Seniority No.235/15-16.

¶38

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to include the first part bill as the seniority list of 2/2015. The petitioner has produced communication issued by the Executive Engineer to the Senior Finance Officer, Office of the Chief Engineer, PWD, Roads and Bridges as Ext.P3. The above communication is stated as follows:

¶39

“The M. Book and LF Books were returned to the section office for certain rectification as requested by the Assistant Engineer during my site inspection. As the same were not resubmitted in time, the bill could not have been audited and hence not included in the Bill schedule for the month of 02/2015. Later the division audit completed but could be re-registered

¶40

W.P.(C).No. 487 of 2016 - : 2 :-

¶41

in the seniority list of 05/15.

¶42

Now the Contractor has represented that a huge loss will be occurred as Bank interest for delay of 3 months and has requested to include the bill in the seniority list of 02/2015 as the delay is not from his part.

¶43

Hence I request that the representation of the contractor may be considered and action may be taken to include this bill for the month of 02/2015 as its Original Seniority.”

¶44

The learned Government Pleader submits that the

¶45

petitioner did not complete the work within the time and therefore seniority can be only reckoned with effect from 5/2015. It is noted that the petitioner is claiming the first part bill. In the light of Ext.P3 communication, this Court is of the view that the 2^nd respondent shall include the first part bill of the petitioner in the seniority of the month of 2/2015.

¶46

The writ petition is disposed of, as above.

¶47

sab

¶48

Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

Nizamudeen a v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nizamudeen a 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

Dr.Rani Abraham Vs Dr.M.Jayaprakas

A.M.Kareem Vs Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies

S.K. Aniyan Vs Santhamma

Surjith Vs Village Officer

Nandini Sudhakara Menon Vs the Village Officer, Methala Village Office

K.Chandra Babu Vs the District Collector