Allowed

Vijayan.C v. the Executive Engineer

Kerala HC5 Dec 2016WP(C)/9081/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, managing partner of a firm with a government road contract, approached the court for payment of dues withheld after a vigilance investigation flagged irregularities and registered a corruption case. The court directed the respondents to release the balance amount after retaining the quantified loss.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to disburse the balance amount after retaining Rs. 20 lakhs for damages.

Vijayan.C Vs the Executive Engineer — Corruption | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9081 of 2016 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

VIJAYAN.C.,

¶8

S/O NARAYANAN, CHENNETHODI HOUSE, EDAYUR P.O., VALANCHERRY, MANAGING PARTNER,

¶9

C. VIJAYAN AND COMPANY

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, PALAKKAD-678 001

¶13

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS AND BRIDGES NORTH CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PWD COMPLEX,

¶14

MANANCHIRA, KOCHIKODE-673 001

¶15

ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED.

¶16

3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOZHIKODE.

¶17

ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08.06.16 IN IA.NO.7050/16

¶18

R1-R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K. ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

SKG

¶21

WP(C).No. 9081 of 2016 (I)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A5-G1/15-16 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 14/01/16

¶25

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.729/2016 DATED 03/09/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKG

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶32

W.P.(C)No.9081 of 2016

¶33

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

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

¶36

Petitioner is the Managing Partner of a partnership

¶37

firm which had undertaken the Government contract works in respect of improvements to Thoothapuzha - Thottumukku - Kandamkadavu - Peradiyar School road km 0/00 to 5/00. The work was completed by the petitioner and he was informed that amounts are due to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 dated 14.01.2016. However, the amounts were not paid, this constraints the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶38

Additional 3^rd respondent has filed a statement contenting that, on a surprise check in connection with work on the basis of a complaint preferred by a 3^rd person, irregularities in the construction was noticed. Consequent to which, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau conducted an investigation and found that a total loss of Rs.22,57,199/- is suffered. The same is the circumstance

¶39

W.P.(C)No.9081 of 2016

¶40

¶41

for the Vigilance to proceed against the petitioner and as per the recommendation contained under surprise check, a case is registered against the petitioner under Section 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 477 A and 120B of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, according to the respondents the amounts due to the petitioner cannot be released. However, a statement dated 29.11.2016 is filed pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 24.11.2016 with respect to the total amount quantified by the respondents towards damages suffered. In accordance with the statement altogether an amount of Rs.19,84,918 is quantified.

¶42

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Government Pleader and perusing the documents on record and pleadings put forth by the respective parties, I am of the considered opinion that, investigation is pending and a crime is registered by the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, and since damages nearing to Rs.20 lakhs is quantified, it is only appropriate that after retaining the said amount the balance amount

¶43

W.P.(C)No.9081 of 2016 3

¶44

due to the petitioner can be directed to be released. Therefore, there will be a direction to the competent among respondents to disburse to the petitioner the balance amount after retaining an amount of Rs.20 lakhs quantified by the additional 3^rd respondent/ investigating officer within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that, in order to effect payment as directed above, file shall be produced for the verification of the officer concerned, as when requested by the officer. I also make it clear that, I have not expressed any opinion in respect to the pendency of the Vigilance case under the provisions of the PC Act.

¶45

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶46

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶47

rmm/5/12/2016

¶48

[ True copy]

¶49

P.A. to Judge

Vijayan.C v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayan.C v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Jabar Vs Dishnet Wireless Limited

M/S. S.K. Kumar Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Managing Director

Satheeshkumar S. Vs Special Deputy Thasildar (R.R)

Silppi Realtors and Contractors [P] Ltd. Vs the Chief Engineer

Mrs.Neena R. Nair Vs Ennar Business Consultants

Sidheeq Kolothumthodika Vs State of Kerala