Disposed

Sali P. Mathai v. Sri. Ajith Pattel

Kerala HC29 Nov 2018Con.Case(C)/2029/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case regarding non-payment under a writ order, the Court held it could not adjudicate the payee's objection to a subsequent deduction. The case was closed with liberty to challenge the Executive Engineer's action.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case was closed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the Executive Engineer's action of deducting the amount.

Sali P. Mathai Vs Sri. Ajith Pattel — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

Con.Case(C).No. 2029 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶6

THURSDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶7

Con.Case(C).No. 2029 of 2017 IN WP(C). 5955/2016

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 5955/2016 DATED 26-02-2016

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

SALI P. MATHAI S/O MATHAI, AGED 48 YEARS, PULIMANACKAL HOUSE, MANAKKAD P.O., THODUPUZHA

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 SRI. AJITH PATTEL MG. DIRECTOR, THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033 695033

¶14

2 SRI.BABU THOMAS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P H CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOCHI-682011.

¶15

3 SMT.JESSY JOSE N THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P H DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOCHI682016.

¶16

4 SRI.KAMALAHASAN THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, W.W.SUB DIVISION, KWA KARUVELIPADI, KOCHI-682005.

¶17

5 SMT.METILDA ROSE THE ASST.ENGINEER, WATER WORKS (SECTION-1), KWA KARUVELIPADI, KOCHI-682005.

¶18

Con.Case(C).No. 2029 of 2017

¶19

¶20

6 SMT. A.SHAINAMOL MG.DIRECTOR, THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALBHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, HENCE NOT SHOWN) ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT 15/12/17 IN IA 874/17 695033

¶21

7 SRI. K.K.ANILKUMAR SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P H CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOCHI-682011. (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, HENCE NOT SHOWN) ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT 15/12/17 IN IA 874/17 682011

¶22

BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL SC KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶23

SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL SC KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶24

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

Con.Case(C).No. 2029 of 2017

¶26

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This Court in W.P(C)No.5955/2016 dated 26.02.2016 directed the respondents 4 and 5, who are the Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer respectively to prepare a final bill and based on the final bill the petitioner shall be paid the bill amount. On account of nonpayment, the petitioner approached this Court in Contempt Case. The amount was released to the petitioner. However, petitioner states that this was not in accordance with the final bill prepared by the Asst. Executive Engineer and Asst. Engineer. Executive Engineer noting that certain amount has been paid inadvertently deducted amount.

¶29

It is to be noted that the Asst. Executive Engineer and Asst. Engineer prepared the bill and paid that amount. Now, that amount is sought to be deducted from the final bill. The case of the respondent is that the Executive Engineer has every right to make such a deduction. No doubt this is a matter requires adjudication. In Contempt proceedings the Court cannot adjudicate such a dispute.

¶30

In view of the fact that all other directions are complied with, this

¶31

Con.Case(C).No. 2029 of 2017

¶32

¶33

Contempt Case is closed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the action of the Executive Engineer deducting certain amount from the final

¶34

bill prepared for Asst. Executive Engineer and Asst. Engineer.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

¶39

Con.Case(C).No. 2029 of 2017

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶43

ANNEXURE-A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.NO.5955 OF 2016 ANNEXURE-B LETTER DT.7.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-C LETTER DT.17.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE-D LETTER DT.9.6.2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE-E LETTER DT.20.9.2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-F PERFORMA DETAILS ISSUED BY ASST.ENGINEER DT.12.3.2016 ANNEXURE-G PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE ANNEXURE-H LETTER DT.26.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE-I RELEVANT PAGE NO.2 OF THE FINAL BILL ANNEXURE-J TRUE COPY OF THE BILL MODULE DT.4.8.2014 ANNEXURE-K TRUE COPY OF THE BILL MODULE DT.4.3.2015 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶44

\TRUE COPY//

¶45

PA TO JUDGE

¶46

Sali P. Mathai v. Sri. Ajith Pattel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sali P. Mathai v. Sri. Ajith Pattel

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

Dr. Dhinu M.R. Vs Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit

Akhil Ravi Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.Rajesh R Chandran Vs State of Kerala

R. Mehaboob Vs State of Kerala

Laiju Antony Vs the State of Kerala

Antony Cheeku Vs the Commissioner, Land Revenue