Allowed

G.Somarajan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2017WP(C)/67/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by a PWD contractor seeking release of outstanding work bill, the High Court directed the petitioner to rectify work defects within a month. Subsequent satisfaction of the authority and submission of a clean representation within three months should lead to the release of the amount.

What did the court decide?

Direction to rectify works within one month; upon satisfaction and representation, release of the amount within three months.

G.Somarajan Vs the 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 SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/17TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 67 of 2017 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

G.SOMARAJAN, SUNIL BHAVANAM, MUTHUKULAM NORTH, CHEPPAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

¶9

SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMARAN THAMPI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HARBOR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.

¶13

3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING CENTRE CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030.

¶14

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DIVISION, MUNICIPAL SATHRAM BUILDING, DISTRICT COURT ROAD, ALAPPUZHA-688 002.

¶15

5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DIVISION, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-691 559.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

msv/

¶19

WP(C).No. 67 of 2017 (G)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE NO.D6-2102/14/EE/ HEDN(A) DATED 19.4.2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.27/2015 -16/EE/H/EDN.(A) DATED 6.7.2015.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.9173/16/FIN.DATED 23.11.2016.

¶25

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.12.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DTD.27.1.2016.

¶28

EXT.R4(b): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD.29.5.2016.

¶29

EXT.R4(c): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.19.8.2016.

¶30

EXT.R4(d): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE AGREEMENT. EXT.R4(e): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE AGREEMENT.

¶31

EXT.R4(f): TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT OF THE INTERNAL VIGILANCE OFFICER.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶36

W.P.(C). No.67 of 2017 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of March, 2017

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Petitioner is a PWD contractor and has secured a work in respect of upgradation of coastal road in Alappuzha District - Spinning Mill Chakkalathu Junction Road in Ward No.17 of Pathiyoor Panchayat. According to the petitioner, petitioner has completed the work to the satisfaction of the tendering authority and an amount of Rs.26,15,778/- is outstanding from July, 2016. However, in spite of all the earnest efforts of the petitioner, the amount is not released.

¶39

Fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit basically contending that, there are several defects to the work executed by the petitioner and release of the bill amount to the petitioner can be considered only after rectifying the defect.

¶40

Today when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for petitioner offered that whatever defect to the work executed by the petitioner will be rectified within a month.

¶41

W.P.(C). No.67 of 2017

¶42

¶43

4, Therefore, there will be a direction to the petitioner to complete the rectification works within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner completes the rectification works to the satisfaction of the said authority, and submit a representation before the 4^th respondent, the same shall be considered and if there are no other legal impediments standing in the way, the amount shall be released to the petitioner without further delay and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation.

¶44

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶45

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶46

smv 08.03.2017

G.Somarajan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Somarajan v. the 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

Jose Vs State of Kerala

N.K.Anilkumar Vs the Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd.

Mohammed Moosa Vs Kerala Water Authority

Francina Vs the District Collector

Sri.Ananthasayanam K Vs the Divisional Railway Manager

K. Krishnan Kutty Vs the District Magistrate/District Cllector