Disposed

M/S. Kunnathu Constructions v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Feb 2018WP(C)/463/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the respondents to process and approve the petitioner's bill for agricultural works within 45 days. The direction also included an instruction to release the amount immediately if the petitioner is found eligible based on existing approved records.

What did the court decide?

Direction to process the bill within 45 days and release the amount if eligible as per Ext.P6.

M/S. Kunnathu Constructions Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 30TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 463 of 2018 ---------------------

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

M/S. KUNNATHU CONSTRUCTIONS, 35/334, VILANGADAN ESTATE, CHURCH ROAD, MAMANGALAM, KOCHI - 682 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER AJAYAKUMAR S.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE SMT.V.A.HARITHA SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR SRI.JEEVAN RAJEEV SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 685 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 3. THE STATE AGRICULTURE ENGINEER, DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶11

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (AGRICULTURE), SANADANAPURAM, ALAPUZHA - 688 033. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (AGRICULTURE) ALAPUZHA - 688 033.

¶12

6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALAPUZHA - 688 001.

¶13

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.M.MANOJ

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.V.

¶16

WP(C).No. 463 of 2018 (G)

¶17

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY LETTER DATED 09.08.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 30.08.2016 EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF A LETTER DATED 06.05.2017 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THAT REGARD ALONG WITH REVISED ESTIMATE REPORT EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 08.08.2017 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.09.2017 EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ALONG WITH THE BILL

¶20

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶21

/TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE

¶22

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶23

W.P.(C) No.463 of 2018

¶24

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2018

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Petitioner is awarded with a tender for deepening of

¶27

Vachal Rani Kayal at an estimate of Rs.37,24,359/-. Since the actual quantity of work done by the petitioner is more, respondents estimated the quantity of work after inspection and an amount of Rs.72,48,878/- is sanctioned to be paid to the petitioner. Out of the said amount, petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.39,07,776/- as on date. The balance remaining due to the petitioner is Rs.33,41,102/-. Even though, according to the petitioner, the actual amount due is Rs.51,66,525, the case projected by the petitioner is that, in spite of the earnest efforts of the petitioner, no action is initiated. Even though the bills were processed later as per Ext.P6 the bills have to be re-submitted for the purpose of administrative sanction and the Agricultural Officer, Aplappuzha is delegated for the said purpose. Fact remains, amounts are not paid to the petitioner.

¶28

W.P.(C) No.463 of 2018

¶29

¶30

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader, there will be a direction to the competent among the respondents to process the bill submitted by the petitioner, approved by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Agriculture), Alappuzha, in accordance with law and attain finality at the earliest possible time and at any rate within 45 (Forty five) days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found to be eligible for release of the amount as is pointed out in Ext.P6, same shall be released to the petitioner without any delay.

¶31

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶34

smv 19.2.2018

M/S. Kunnathu Constructions v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Kunnathu Constructions 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

Joseph Chacko Vs the Tahsildar

E.v.Santhosh Kumar Vs Sri. Hemachandran

Ar. (Prof) Abhimod K. Vs Dr. Abdul Majeed T.A.

Afnas Vs Dr.K.Mohammed Basheer

Thomas Alexander Vs Special Deputy Thahasildar (Rr)

Soman Vs District Collector, Kozhikode