Allowed

K. Sasikumar v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Feb 2018WP(C)/1556/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a PWD contractor, challenged an order declining his claims for cancellation of a work award due to adverse situations. The Court found the decision-maker lacked jurisdiction and due process was violated, quashing the order.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P14 order quashed; direction to first respondent to place matter before the Arbitration Committee for decision within three months after hearing.

K. Sasikumar Vs the State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 12TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 1556 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K. SASIKUMAR, GEETHANIKETHAN, NADUVILA VILLAGE, PADINAJRE MURI, VAIKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.N.RAGHURAJ

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(R & B), SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER(R B), SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD DIVISION, KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶14

5. THE ARBITRATION COMMITTEE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PUBLIC WORKS(G)DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY-695001.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 1556 of 2018 (T)

¶18

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.04.1986.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.07.1986 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.33873/B2/88/PW&T DATED 23.5.1989
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.16670/X1/90/PW&T DATED 24.11.1992 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.03.1997 IN R.P.NO.87/97 IN O.P.NO.1360/93.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTIMATION BEARING NO.18450/K1/21J01/PWD DATD 7.01.2002
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.23811/H2/2001/PWD DATED 28.02.2003
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.03.2003
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.18450/G1/2001/PWD DATED 15.05.2002 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY,PUBLIC WORKS(G)DEPARTMENT
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.03.2007 IN W.P.(C)NO.25527 0F 2003.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING G.O.(RT)NO.1114/2007/PWD DATED 24.09.2007
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.05.2017 IN W.P(C)NO.948 OF 2009.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COVERING LETTER 20.07.2017.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING
	G.O.(RT)NO.1647/2017/PWD DATED 05.11.2017.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

NIL

¶23

TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE

¶24

¶25

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶26

W.P.(C). No. 1556 OF 2018

¶27

Dated this the 01^st day of February, 2018

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Petitioner was a registered PWD contractor. He was awarded with a work of 'improvement of NeerparaMoolekadavu Road' by the third respondent. Certain adverse situations occurred consequent to which the work awarded to the petitioner was cancelled at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Petitioner has challenged the said action by filing O.P.No. 1360/1993 before this Court, which was dismissed. Later petitioner has submitted a review petition before this Court as R.P.No. 87/1997 in the afore-specified original petition and based on the contentions put forth in the review, this Court directed the Arbitration Committee constituted by the Government to look into the issues raised by the petitioner, especially in respect of the escalation sought for by the petitioner. Thereafter, Ext.P9 order was passed by the State

¶30

W.P.(C). No. 1556 of 2018 2

¶31

Government, which was interfered with by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment, dated 22.03.2007, wherein a direction was issued to the Arbitration Committee to take a decision, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In compliance with the direction, Ext.P11 order is passed, dated 24.09.2007, which was under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C). No. 948/2009. The said writ petition was allowed, as per the judgment, dated 25.05.2017, directing the first respondent to reconsider the matter, and take a proper decision, in accordance with law, which should be a reasoned order, keeping in mind the law laid down in the decisions referred to therein. Thereafter, the first respondent has passed Ext.P14 order declining the reliefs sought for by the petitioner.

¶32

The contentions advanced by the petitioner are two fold:- i) the decision was taken by the Secretary to the first respondent Government, while the decision ought to have been taken by the Arbitration Committee

¶33

W.P.(C). No. 1556 of 2018

¶34

¶35

constituted by the State Government for the purpose of evaluating such situations; ii) there was no hearing provided to the petitioner before taking a decision in Ext.P14.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

¶37

The case has a chequered history from the year 1993 onwards and as referred to above various directions were issued by this Court directing the Arbitration Committee to take a decision, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In Ext.P12 judgment this Court has taken into account various principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in its various judgments, and has issued a direction to the first respondent to take a decision, in accordance with law. Here is a case, where the first respondent itself has taken a decision while the matter ought to have been referred to the Arbitration Committee constituted to decide such issues. Therefore, the order Ext.P14 is bad on that

¶38

W.P.(C). No. 1556 of 2018

¶39

¶40

account. Furthermore, I am informed that, there is no hearing provided to the petitioner before passing Ext.P14, which violates the principles of natural justice and thereby, Ext.P14 becomes arbitrary and illegal liable to be interfered with by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I have no hesitation to quash Ext.P14. Accordingly, I do so and there will be a direction to the first respondent to place the matter before the Arbitration Committee constituted for the purpose. The Arbitration Committee shall taken a decision, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested persons.

¶41

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

¶42

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶43

DCS

K. Sasikumar v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Sasikumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Indrabalan Vs Ayyappan Asoakan

Ammini Kurian Vs Smt. R.Girija

R. Solomon Thomas Vs State of Kerala

T.A.K Thommen Vs the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk

D.Manoharan Vs State of Kerala

T. Radhakrishna Pillai Vs District Collector, Kollam