Allowed

V.M. Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Jul 2017WP(C)/24432/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner, a contractor, sought a direction for the respondents to accept his unpaid bills as security deposit and performance guarantee for a new work. The High Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to accept the bills and extended the execution period by two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to accept unpaid bills towards security deposit and performance guarantee; execution period extended by two weeks.

V.M. Jose Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2017/2ND SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 24432 of 2017 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

V.M. JOSE,

¶8

AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.LATE V.M. MATHEW, VEMBANATTU HOUSE, PUTHIYAKAVU, TRIPUNITHURA. P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, SMT.M.SANTHY, SMT.M.D.BEENA, SRI.M.P.JAYAN.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORT (M) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS & BRIDGES, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAYE.

¶13

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, ERNAKULAM, THRIKKAKARA. P.O.

¶14

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 24432 of 2017 (D)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE (SELECTION NOTICE) NO.DEE 2016/4082 DATED 04.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD(R&B), CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA TO THE PETITIONER.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFICE LETTER NO.A7-851/15 DATED 17.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.07.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD(R&B), CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P[C]NO.40522/2016 DATED 12.01.2017.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶29

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.24432 of 2017-D.

¶30

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24^th day of July, 2017.

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner is a contractor undertaking works of the Public Works Department of the State Government. Now, the petitioner is awarded a new work. Ext.P1 is the communication issued to the petitioner by the Department in this connection. It is stated that the petitioner is required by the Department to furnish security deposit and performance guarantee for the work covered by Ext.P1 so as to enable the Department to enter into the requisite agreement for the execution of the work. The limited prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to accept his unpaid bills towards security deposit and performance guarantee for the work covered by Ext.P1.

¶33

It is seen that in large number of cases, this Court has granted the relief sought for by the petitioner to similarly placed contractors. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to accept the unpaid bills of

¶34

W.P.(C).No.24432/2017-D.

¶35

¶36

sufficient value to cover the amounts towards the security deposit and performance guarantee for the work covered by Ext.P1 communication. The period prescribed for execution of the agreement for the work will also stand extended by two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, for compliance of the said direction.

¶37

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶38

Kvs/-

¶39

// true copy //

V.M. Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.M. Jose 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

Manoj S.Viswam Vs M.G.Rajamanykyam

C.Premarajan Vs Sri.M G Rajamanikiam

N.G.Lalu Vs Rajamanikyam

Veni Vs the State of Kerala

Beeran Haji Vs the Special Tahsildar

Doney Varghese Vs the State of Kerala