Disposed

P.B.Khabeerkhan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Nov 2019WP(C)/27709/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, a contractor unable to complete bridge construction work within time, sought a direction for the Government to decide on his representation for agreement closure. The Court directed the competent authority to consider the representation with notice within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the competent authority to consider and take appropriate action on the petitioner's representation (Ext.P6) with notice within two months.

P.B.Khabeerkhan Vs the State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.27709 OF 2019(K)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.B.KHABEERKHAN

¶8

MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.P.K.CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, NEAR N.G.O.QUARTERS, MOOVATTUPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL SRI.JOJO JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

¶12

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶13

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, ROADS AND BRIDGES, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA, PIN-682301.

¶14

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS & BRIDGES, ROADS DIVISION, IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA, PIN-681001.

¶15

SRI B.VINOD - SR GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.27709 OF 2019(K)

¶18

¶19

W.P.(C) No.27709 of 2019

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The petitioner is a contractor who was assigned the work of construction of a bridge. The work has not been completed by the petitioner within the time stipulated. According to the petitioner, it was on account of reasons not attributable to the petitioner that the work could not be completed and on that premise, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 representation before the Government for closure of the agreement. The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the matter was taken up, was for a direction to the Government to take a decision on Ext.P6 representation preferred by the petitioner.

¶22

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

¶23

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

¶24

WP(C).No.27709 OF 2019(K)

¶25

¶26

the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the competent authority of the Government to consider and take appropriate action on Ext.P6 representation with notice to the petitioner, within two months. Ordered accordingly.

¶27

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶28

¶29

WP(C).No.27709 OF 2019(K)

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶33

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE DATED 20.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶34

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.4.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ANOTHER REPRESENTATION DATED 30.10.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 04.10.2018 BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE ON 5.12.2018 SENT THROUGH THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.7.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶35

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶36

\TRUE COPY//

¶37

PA TO JUDGE

¶38

P.B.Khabeerkhan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.B.Khabeerkhan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arshad Hussain, Vs the Superintendent of Police (Rural)

Shaji v Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

C.U.John Vs the District Supply Officer

T.K.Gopi Vs State of Kerala

Sivadasan Vs State of Kerala

Jibin Jacob Vs the State of Kerala