Disposed

Hansar M.K v. Kerala Water Authority, Represented by the Managing Director

Kerala HC9 Aug 2017WP(C)/23533/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner executed work for the Kerala Water Authority and raised part bills. The Authority promised payment on priority without a time frame. The court directed the first respondent to disburse proceeds within three months, noting delayed payments hinder work progress. All other issues were left open.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to disburse proceeds of the part bills referred to in the writ petition within three months from the date of the judgment.

Hansar M.K Vs Kerala Water Authority, Represented by the Managing Director — Kerala HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/18TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 23533 of 2017 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

----------

¶8

HANSAR M.K., AGED 41 YEARS,

¶9

S/O. MUHAMMED KASIM, HASEENA COTTAGE, PANAYIKULAM PO, ALUVA,

¶10

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN, AGED 54 YEARS, FATHIMA BUILDING, SECOND FLOOR,

¶11

NORTH KALAMASSERY

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL GEORGE

¶13

SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY

¶14

RESPONDENTS :

¶15

-----------

¶16

1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶17

2. CHIEF ENGINEER, (NORTHERN REGION), KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE

¶18

3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY P.H.CIRCLE, MALAPPURAM

¶19

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶20

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION,MALAPPURAM

¶21

BY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC,

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

WP(C).No. 23533 of 2017 (N)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 4.1.2016 SIGNED BY M.V.VISWANATHAN AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY M.V.VISWANATHAN IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PART BILL CC 1ST ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 29,54.676/EXHIBIT P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PART BILL CC IIND ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 33,72,563/EXHIBIT P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PART BILL CC IIIRD ISSUE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 48,47,144/RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶28

¶29

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(C.) No.23533 of 2017

¶32

Dated this the 9^th day of August, 2017

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner is executing a work for the Kerala Water

¶35

Authority. He is entitled to raise part bills in the course of execution of the work for the completed portions of the work. The petitioner has, accordingly, raised part bills for the completed portion of the work, and the officers concerned of the Water Authority, after processing the said part bills, requested the technical member of the Water Authority to provide funds required for honouring the part bill. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the technical member of the Water Authority is not providing funds required for honouring the part bills raised in respect of the work. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions to the Water Authority to disburse the amounts due to the petitioner.

¶36

The learned Standing Counsel for the Water

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C.) No.23533/2017

¶39

Authority, on instructions, submitted that the funds requested for effecting the payment due to the petitioner will be made available on priority basis.

¶40

It is beyond dispute that the contract enables the petitioner to raise part bills. When the contract enables the contractors to raise part bills for the completed portions of the work, the contractors contemplate the proceeds of the part bills also for execution of the remaining part of the work. As such, if the part bills are not honoured within a reasonable time, the progress of the work will be adversely affected. The stand of the Water Authority that the part bills will be honoured only on priority basis, without disclosing any time frame, cannot, therefore, be accepted.

¶41

The writ petition, in the circumstances, is disposed of directing the first respondent to disburse the proceeds of the part bills referred to in the writ petition, within three months from today. All other issues are left open.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

SKS

¶44

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

P.A. TO JUDGE

Hansar M.K v. Kerala Water Authority, Represented by the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hansar M.K v. Kerala Water Authority, Represented by the Managing Director

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

Smt. Sujasree Vs District Collector

Anna Mathew Vs State of Kerala

P M Mohammed Ali Vs the Chief Electrical Inspector

DM Education and Research Foundation Vs Rajeev Sadanandan

Casa Land Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thalassery

Raghavan Vs the Passport Officer