Allowed

K.a.Majeed, v. the Superintending Engineer

Kerala HC23 Oct 2019WP(C)/2874/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a contractor, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the release of unpaid work dues. The court directed the additional tenth respondent to sanction the revised estimate within 30 days, enabling further payment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to additional tenth respondent to accord necessary sanction for the revised estimate of the work within 30 days.

K.a.Majeed, Vs the Superintending Engineer — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.2874 OF 2019(H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.A.MAJEED, AGED 58 YEARS S/O.UMMER HAJI, MALABAR HILLS, PUTHIYARA.P.O., KASBA VILLAGE, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENTS, BUILDING DIVISION, NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKKODE-673001.

¶11

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT (BUILDING DIVISION), KOZHIKKODE-673001.

¶12

3 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (WORKS), PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT (BUILDINGS), NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKKODE-673001.

¶13

4 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD) BUILDINGS, NORTH CIRCLE, PWD COMPLEX, KOZHIKKODE-673001.

¶14

5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

6 ADDL.R6 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LSGD DIVISION, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, KOZHIKODE-673001. (ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 07/03/2019 IN IA.NO.01/2019)

¶16

7 ADDL.R7. CHIEF ENGINEER, LSGD DIVISION, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, KOZHIKODE-673 001.

¶17

8 ADDL.R8.SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER LSGD DIVISION, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH,

¶18

WP(C).No.2874 OF 2019(H)

¶19

¶20

KOZHIKODE-673 001.

¶21

9 ADDL.R9.SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶22

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENTS 7 TO 9 VIDE ORDER DATED 30/8/19 IN I.A.NO.2/2019.

¶23

10 ADDL. R10. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶24

(ADDITIONAL R10 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23/10/2019)

¶25

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER – SMT.VINITHA B

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

WP(C).No.2874 OF 2019(H)

¶28

¶29

W.P.(C) No.2874 of 2019

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner is a contractor. He has executed a work for the Thiruvambadi Grama Panchayath based on an agreement entered with the first respondent. Though the work has been executed by the petitioner satisfactorily, a portion of the amounts due to the petitioner is yet to be released. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

¶32

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the proposal for the work had to be revised in the course of execution of the work and the Government is yet to accord sanction for the revised estimate of the work, and it is on account of the said reason that a portion of the amounts due to the petitioner could not be released. It was pointed out that the additional tenth respondent has to accord sanction for the revised estimate of the work. The fact that the petitioner has executed the

¶33

¶34

WP(C).No.2874 OF 2019(H)

¶35

work entrusted to him satisfactorily, has however, not been disputed or denied by the learned Government Pleader.

¶36

In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the additional tenth respondent to accord necessary sanction for the revised estimate of the work referred to in the writ petition within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that the balance payment due to the petitioner shall be effected within 30 days thereafter by the competent authority among the respondents.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶39

¶40

WP(C).No.2874 OF 2019(H)

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION 6.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶45

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 12.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶46

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶47

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶48

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 4.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT THROUGH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (PWD).

¶49

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶50

\TRUE COPY//

¶51

PA TO JUDGE

¶52

K.a.Majeed, v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.a.Majeed, v. the Superintending 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

Ramlath, Vs the District Police Chief, Kozhikode

M/S.Freeze Fast Technoligies Vs the State of Kerala

Maitheenkunju P.S. Vs Kerala State Housing Board

Rosmi Lukose Vs Oceanus Dwelling Private Limited

D.Dinesh Babu, Vs a.P.Sreekumar

Gip Boards Vs Chief Conservator of Forests