Disposed

K.P. Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2019WP(C)/9/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a contractor seeking return of a security deposit and a direction to consider a proposal for cost escalation regarding a construction contract. The Court held that the subject matter was not finalized and directed the 2nd respondent to consider the proposal after a hearing within a month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to finalize the Ext.P10 application submitted by the petitioner after providing an opportunity of hearing within one month from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment

K.P. Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 9 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

K.P. ANILKUMAR, S/O.LATE K PARAMESWARAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, MANJUMMAL.P.O., ERNAKULAM-683501.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT. K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SMT. SUDHA K.S.

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, L.S.G.D. DIVISION, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682030.

¶12

3 THE KUMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANANGADU.P.O., ERNAKULAM-682506, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.M.RESMI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 9 of 2019 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

¶18

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondent No.2 to return the Treasury Fixed Deposit to the petitioner forthwith.

¶19

Or in the alternative

¶20

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondent No.2 to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P10 within a period stipulated by this Honourable court.

¶21

And

¶22

(iii) To grant such other and further reliefs this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶23

Petitioner is a contractor by profession and was

¶24

the successful bidder for the execution of the construction of a drainage and tarring of the road,

¶25

”Chencheril road” in Ward No.13 of Kumbalam Grama

¶26

Panchayat notified as per tender No.193/EE/LSGD/16-17.

¶27

The agreement was executed on 25.03.2017, and paid an amount of Rs.78,800/- towards security deposit.

¶28

WP(C).No. 9 of 2019 3

¶29

Though the time limit prescribed for completion of work was six months, there was no attempt on the part of the 2^nd respondent to hand over the site. Even though, several communications were issued and a meeting was convened on 26.07.2018, by the President of the Grama Panchayat to discuss various aspects of the completion of the work, no fruitful results could be achieved. Thereafter, petitioner was directed to intimate steps for the commencement of the work and thereupon, petitioner has submitted Ext.P10 proposal either to enhance the estimated amount at least by 40% in view of the escalation of prices and the wages or to return fixed deposit of Rs.78,800/-, which is pending consideration.

¶30

The 2^nd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions it is stated that, petitioner, instead of taking necessary steps to complete the work, served a legal notice dated 16.04.2018, to the 2^nd respondent, asking refund of security deposit within 15 days. However, the deposit could not be released, as the liability of the contractor was yet to be ascertained.

¶31

With a view to discuss the completion of the

¶32

WP(C).No. 9 of 2019 4

¶33

work, a meeting was arranged in the office of the 2^nd respondent which was intimated to the petitioner as per Ext.P8. The meeting was attended by the 2^nd respondent, petitioner and the concerned Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer, and petitioner has offered his willingness to complete the work after holding further discussions in the matter and the same has been recorded in the minutes of the meeting. In the circumstances, the agreement with the petitioner has not yet been terminated by the District Panchayat, the security deposit can be returned to the petitioner only after adjusting any liabilities, due to the termination of the said work.

¶34

A reply affidavit is submitted by the petitioner reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition.

¶35

Having evaluated the contentions put forth by the respective counsel across the Bar and the pleadings and the documents put forth, I am of the considered opinion that the subject matter is not yet finalized by the respondent. Petitioner has put forth a proposal as per Ext.P10, seeking escalation of the amounts already quoted by the petitioner due to efflux of time and increased costs on various factors. I think it is only appropriate that a finality is attained to the same,

¶36

WP(C).No. 9 of 2019 5

¶37

enabling the statutory authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law. This I say so, because, from the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, it is clear that, no action was initiated against the petitioner, since petitioner has put forth a proposal for carrying on with the work.

¶38

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2^nd respondent to finalize Ext.P10 application submitted by the petitioner, after providing an opportunity of hearing and participation to the petitioner and other interested persons, at the earliest and at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

uu 15.03.2019

WP(C).No. 9 of 2019 6

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE	INTIMATION DATED
		3.3.2017 ISSUED B THE PETITIONER.	Y THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE (SERVED ON 11.2.2 RESPONDENT TO THE	NOTICE DATED 15.1.2018 018)ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.	REQUEST DATED 14.2.2018 PETITIONER BEFORE THE
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE 14.2.2018 EVIDENC EXT.P3 NOTICE ON	POSTAL RECEIPT DATED ING THE SERVICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.	LETTER DATED 11.4.2018 RESPONDENT TO THE
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE 16.4.2018 SENT BY COUNSEL TO THE 2N	LAWYER NOTICE DATED THE PETITIONER'S D RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 5.5.2018.	ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD
EXHIBIT	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE 17.7.2018 ISSUED 2ND RESPONDENT TO	COMMUNICATION DATED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P9	TRUE COPY OF THE TO THE PETITIONER MEETING HELD ON 2	MINUTES MADE AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF THE 7.7.2018.
EXHIBIT	P10	TRUE COPY OF THE 30.7.2018 SUBMITT BEFORE 2ND RESPON	COMMUNICATION DATED ED BY THE PETITIONER DENT.
EXHIBIT	P11	TRUE COPY OF THE 31.7.2018.	ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED

¶48

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL

¶49

//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

K.P. Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P. Anilkumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.J.Johnson Vs P.S.Akbar Khan

Sovereign Pet Performs Pvt. Ltd, Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

Fawaz Vs Syndicate Bank

Rajesh.R, Vs District Collector

T.K.Mohanan Vs Manjula

V.Ponraj Vs State of Kerala