Disposed

Roopam Constructions, v. the Chief Engineer

Kerala HC6 Aug 2019WP(C)/10001/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition filed by a construction company engaged for university works. It directed the second respondent to finalize the petitioner's pending representation seeking agreement termination, ensuring the petitioner receives an opportunity of hearing within a month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to finalize the petition's representation (Ext.P7) after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within one month.

Roopam Constructions, Vs the Chief Engineer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.10001 OF 2019(A)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

M/S. ROOPAM CONSTRUCTIONS, EDAYAPPURAM ROAD, ASOKAPURAM, ALUVA 683 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ER. V.S. MYTHEEN.

¶8

BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, BSNL, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL, BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, ADMN. BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, YAMUNA NAGAR, MANACAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 009.

¶11

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL), BHARATH SANCHAR, NIGAM LIMITED, THAZHATHANGADI, KOTTAYAM 686 005.

¶12

3 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM 686 560.

¶13

BY ADVS. R1 & R2 SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP. STANDING COUNSEL R3 SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.10001 OF 2019 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Petitioner is a contractor engaged by the BSNL

¶18

to execute certain works of Mahatma Gandhi University. Case of the petitioner is that, nine quarters were completed by the petitioner and amounts are received. However for the construction of the entire quarters, amounts are received by the BSNL from the Mahatma Gandhi University and distributed the money for payment of salary etc., and therefore if the work is continued by the petitioner, there won't be any money left with the BSNL to pay to the petitioner, this is the case projected by the petitioner. Petitioner has also submitted Ext.P7 representation before the Executive Engineer of the BSNL seeking to terminate the

¶19

agreement of the petitioner, since the BSNL is not having sufficient money for distribution. The relief sought for is consideration of Ext.P7.

¶20

A statement is filed for and on behalf of

¶21

the Mahatma Gandhi University stating that, so far

¶22

WP(C).No.10001 OF 2019 3

¶23

the University has released an amount of Rs.4,48,66,100/- to BSNL. According to the

¶24

petitioner, the said figure represents the entire contract value, which is disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the BSNL. Anyhow,

¶25

these are all matters to be looked into by the 2^nd respondent before whom Ext.P7 representation is pending consideration.

¶26

respective counsel across the Bar, this writ

¶27

petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to finalise Ext.P7 in accordance with law, after

¶28

providing an opportunity of hearing and

¶29

participation to the petitioner, at the earliest and at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgmnet.

¶30

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C).No.10001 OF 2019 4

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH THE PROGRAM CHART.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07.11.2016 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 16.12.2016
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.12.2016 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.03.2017 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 07.04.2017.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 08.06.2017.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 25.09.2018
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14.11.2018 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.12.2018 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.12.2018 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶39

WP(C).No.10001 OF 2019 5

¶40

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT R1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY BSNL TO MG. UNIVERSITY

Roopam Constructions, v. the Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roopam Constructions, v. the Chief Engineer

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

St.Alphonsa Transport, Vs Chief Transport Manager(Retail)South

Vadakkan Roadways, Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Julie Jaya Vs the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations

K.M.Michael Vs Government of Kerala

T.H.Musthaffa Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(General)

P.Shanavas, Vs Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board