Dismissed

Sajeev Mathew and Company v. Public Works Department

Kerala HC26 Nov 2019WP(C)/19910/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner contractor sought directions to accept unpaid bills as security deposit for a new PWD work. Court dismissed writ noting audit was pending, but offered a two-week window to furnish standard security/execute agreement.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner allowed two weeks to furnish security and execute agreement to proceed with new work.

Sajeev Mathew and Company Vs Public Works Department — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.19910 OF 2019(K)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SAJEEV MATHEW AND COMPANY, CHERUMATTATHIL HOUSE, EAST MARADLY.P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA-686 673.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGH WAY (CENTRAL CIRCLE), VYTTILA, KOCHI-19.

¶11

2 ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS SUB DIVISION), OFFICE OF THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, VAIKOM-686144.

¶12

SMT. VINITHA GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

W.P. (C) No. 19910 of 2019

¶16

W.P. (C) No. 19910 of 2019

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The petitioner is a contractor undertaking works of

¶19

the Public Works Department of the State Government. They have been awarded a new work in terms of Ext.P1 communication. In terms of Ext.P1, the petitioner is required to furnish security deposit. The case of the petitioner is that they have satisfactorily executed two other works under the Public Works Department and the unpaid bills raised in respect of those works are sufficient to cover the security deposit payable in terms of Ext.P1. The petitioner, therefore, made a request to the competent authority to accept the unpaid bills in respect of those two works as the security deposit for the work covered by Ext.P1. Since the request made by the petitioner has not been considered, this writ petition is preferred seeking appropriate directions.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶21

The learned Government Pleader, on

¶22

¶23

W.P. (C) No. 19910 of 2019

¶24

instructions, submitted that the audit in respect of the two works, the bills of which are now offered towards the security deposit of the new work is yet to be over and the same cannot, therefore, be accepted towards the security deposit for the new work.

¶25

The rules in force do not enable the contractors

¶26

to offer the unpaid bills towards security deposit for new works. Nevertheless, this court is issuing directions to accept unpaid bills towards security deposit on equitable considerations. However, when it is pointed out that the audit in respect of the works, the bills of which are offered towards the security deposit of the new work is yet to be over, it may not be appropriate for this court to direct the competent authority to accept such bills towards security deposit for new works.

¶27

The writ petition, in the circumstances, is without merits and same is, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner furnishes the security and

¶28

¶29

W.P. (C) No. 19910 of 2019

¶30

execute the agreement in respect of the new work within two weeks from today, they shall be permitted to execute the work.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶33

YKB

¶34

¶35

W.P. (C) No. 19910 of 2019

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION D2-458/2019 DATED 21.6.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶39

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT ON 7.9.2003.

¶40

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION AB210083/18 DATED 28.6.2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC.NO.28705 OF 2016 DATED 9.9.2016 IN A SIMILAR MATTER.

¶41

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(P) 429/15/FIN DATED 28/09/2015

¶42

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) 1/19/FIN DATED 10/1/2019

¶43

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

ANNEXURE R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE LETTER

¶45

NO.D2-458/2019 DATED 20.07.2019

¶46

TRUE COPY//

¶47

PA TO JUDGE

¶48

YKB

Sajeev Mathew and Company v. Public Works Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeev Mathew and Company v. Public Works Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chinju. K.P Vs State of Kerala

Mayakrishna Mooppan Vs State of Kerala

Yaqoob.P.P Vs the Tahasildar, Thaliparamba

P.S. Sanal Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Gitanjali Kurup, Vs the Branch Manager, State Bank of India

Rajesh P. Vs a.v.George IPS