Dismissing the writ petition filed by a computer service company seeking directions to clear pending bills and issue new work orders, the Court held that since the contract period is over and amounts were satisfied according to the respondent, the dispute must be approached in the Civil Court rather than through writ jurisdiction.
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
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/23RD KARTHIKA, 1939
WP(C).No. 21607 of 2013 (A) ----------------------------
PETITIONER:
SOMTECH COMPUTERS, CHALAKUDY,NEAR RAILWAY STATION,THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR,SOMAN KURUVATH
BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN SRI.K.M.HASHIR SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN
RESPONDENT:
THE EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN &DIRECTOR, INFORMATION KERALA MISSION,PANAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 581
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT A.C.VIDHYA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.V.
WP(C).No. 21607 of 2013 (A)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY ISSUED BY THE |
OF RE |
THE SPON |
SELECTION NOTICE DATED 14-05-2012 DENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY BY THE PETITI |
OF ONE |
THE R TO |
COMMUNICATION DATED 2-5-2012 ISSUED THE RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY ISSUED BY THE |
OF PET |
THE ITIO |
COMMUNICATION DATED 20-10-2012 NER IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY ISSUED BY THE |
OF PET |
THE ITIO |
COMMUNICATION DATED 21-03-2013 NER TO THE RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY ISSUED BY THE |
OF PET |
THE ITIO |
COMMUNICATION DATED 12-05-2013 NER TO THE RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY RS.6,49,173/- |
OF TO |
THE THE |
LIST OF PENDING BILLS TOTAL VIEW FROM THE RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY BY THE RESPOND |
OF ENT |
THE TO |
COMMUNICATION DATED 6.9.2013 ISSUED THE PETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT P8: THE TRUE COPY PETITIONER TO |
THE THE |
BIL RES |
L DATED 23.9.2013 ISSUED BY THE PONDENT. |
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
/TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
=====================
W.P.(C)No.21607 of 2013-A
========================== Dated this the 14th day of November, 2017
Judgment
The petitioner was before this Court in the year 2013,
seeking the following prayers:-
(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to initiate steps to clear all pending bills submitted by the petitioner.
(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to issue work orders for continuing work already done by the petitioner and to make the payments covered by the work orders.
(iii) Allow the writ petition with costs.
(iv) Grant such other further reliefs which this Hon'ble court may pleased to direct in the facts and circumstances of the case.
later, the petitioner was before this Court with an I.A numbered
2
W.P.(C) No.21607/2013
as I.A No.16017 of 2013, in which the following order was passed.
The learned Government Pleader points out that the period of contract is already over and the due amount has already been satisfied. But the petitioner has not approached the respondent for issuance of gate pass. It is stated that there is no objection for the respondent in granting the relief sought for. Accordingly, it is allowed as prayed for.
respondents to clear all pending bills submitted by the petitioner
and also to direct issuance of work orders for continuing the work already done by the petitioner. The second prayer no longer survives for consideration, since the petitioner himself had sought for a gate pass to remove the materials of the petitioner from the site of the respondents. That was also permitted as per the order in 2013. In fact, the order was passed on the specific submission of the learned Government Pleader
that the period of contract is already over and the due amounts have already been satisfied. The petitioner did not dispute such
3
W.P.(C) No.21607/2013
submission and presumably removed the materials after obtaining gate pass. If at all the petitioner has any dispute with respect to the payment of bills, the petitioner should have approached the Civil Court, since the submission of the learned Government Pleader in the year 2013 was that the due amounts according to them has already been satisfied.
In such circumstance, this Court does not find any reason to keep the matter pending. The reliefs as prayed for cannot be granted. The writ petition would stand dismissed. No
costs.
Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
SB/15/11/2017
// true copy //
P.A to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can direct issuance of further work orders when the contract period is already over.
Whether pending bills submitted by the petitioner can be cleared through writ proceedings when dues are already satisfied.
Whether a civil dispute regarding bill payments can be adjudicated in a writ petition.
SOMTECH COMPUTERS
THE EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN & DIRECTOR, INFORMATION KERALA MISSION
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
