Allowed

M/S. Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC6 Jun 2017WP(C)/8048/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding non-payment of work bills by Kerala Water Authority, the Court directed the Authority to pay the due amounts within three months, finding that paucity of funds cannot be an excuse for indefinite delay if work was completed satisfactorily.

What did the court decide?

Direct the Water Authority to disburse the amounts due to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment copy.

M/S. Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt… — 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

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/16TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 8048 of 2017 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/S. REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE, 602, SHIV TOWERS, PATTO-PLAZA, PANAJI, GOA - 403 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.C.JAMES.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.K.V.GEORGE SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.P.S.GIREESH SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY KUM.POOJA DILIP

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶12

2. THE FINANCE MANAGER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, HEAD OFFICE, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶13

3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.CIRCLE, KANNUR - 670 012. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, KANNUR - 670 012.

¶14

*ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED

¶15

R5. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF DRINKING WATER & SANITATION, C WING, 4TH FLOOR, PANDIT DEENDAYAL ANTYODAYA BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.

¶16

**(ADDITIONAL R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER OPRDER DATED 11/04/2017 IN IA NO.6314/2017)*

¶17

R1-R4 BY ADV.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER UTHORITY R5 BY ADV. SRI.JAGATH. N., CGC

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

rvs.

¶20

WP(C).No. 8048 of 2017 (E )

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF WORK ORDER NO.KWA/PHC/KNR/D2-2577/2012 DATED 20.02.2014 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF BILL IN FORM CB3 VOUCHER, DATED NIL, SANCTIONED ON 24.04.2015 IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER BY 4TH RESPONDENT ALONGWITH ITS READABLE COPY.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF BILL IN FORM CB3 VOUCHER, DATED NIL, SANCTIONED ON 29.03.2016 IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER BY 4TH RESPONDENT ALONGWITH ITS READABLE COPY.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 23.06.2016 IN WP(C)NO.18152 OF 2016 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

rvs.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶33

-------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.8048 of 2017

¶34

--------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 06^th day of June, 2017

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The petitioner has executed a work for the Kerala Water Authority. In the course of execution of the work, part bills have been raised in respect of the work and after the completion of the work, the final bill has also been raised. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the Kerala Water Authority in disbursing the amounts due in respect of the work.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority.

¶38

The learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority does not dispute the fact that the work has been completed by the petitioner satisfactorily. The contention of

¶39

W.P.(C).No.8048 of 2017 :2 :

¶40

the Water Authority is only that the amounts due to the petitioner is not being disbursed due to paucity of funds. In so far as the petitioner has executed the work satisfactorily, they cannot be asked to wait indefinitely for the payment due to them.

¶41

In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the Water Authority is directed to disburse the amounts due to the petitioner in respect of the work referred to in the writ petition, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶42

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶43

Bb/08/06/2017

¶44

[True copy]

¶45

P.A to Judge

M/S. Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala Water Authority

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

Khaleel.C Vs Union of India

Anand.S Vs State of Kerala

Shameel Babu Vs the Union of India

M/S.Reena Engineers and Constractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kerala Water Authority

M/S. Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kerala Water Authority

Jothiram T.Kadom Vs State of Kerala