Allowed

Rajoy Joseph P.J., v. the Superintending Engineer

Kerala HC28 Nov 2019WP(C)/28833/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions for payment of dues for executed irrigation work. Court held petitioner satisfied his obligations and is entitled to payment, directing second respondent to release admitted balance within three months irrespective of Tourism Department's funding issues.

What did the court decide?

Directed second respondent to disburse admitted balance payment due to petitioner within three months.

Rajoy Joseph P.J., Vs the Superintending Engineer — 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

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.28833 OF 2019(D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAJOY JOSEPH P.J., AGED 33 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, PADASSERY HOUSE, PERUVANAMUZHI P.O., KOZHIKODE.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN SMT.PHILIA KOSHY

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, PROJECT CIRCLE, KANNUR, PIN - 670 002.

¶11

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KUTTIYADI IRRIGATION PROJECT DIVISION, PERAMBRA, PIN - 673 525.

¶12

3 THE DIRECTOR, TOURISM DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 011.

¶13

SMT. PRINCY XAVIER, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C)No.28833 of 2019

¶16

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The petitioner has executed a work on the basis of

¶19

an agreement entered into with the second respondent. The petitioner has, however, not been provided the dues in respect of the work. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

¶21

also the learned Government Pleader.

¶22

There is no dispute to the fact that the work has been executed by the petitioner satisfactorily. The learned Government Pleader, however, submitted that the work was in fact executed for the Tourism Department of the State Government making use of the funds provided by the Central Tourism Department. It was pointed out that since the work has not been completed by the petitioner within time, the Central Tourism Department has withdrawn the funds provided to the State Tourism Department and it is on account of the said reason that the payments due to the petitioner could not be

¶23

W.P.(C)No.28833 of 2019

¶24

¶25

effected.

¶26

In so far as the petitioner has executed the

¶27

work based on the agreement entered into with the second respondent satisfactorily within the time stipulated in the agreement and as extended by the second respondent, the second respondent is obliged to make the payment due to the petitioner. If the Tourism Department has any impediment in providing the funds to the second respondent, the petitioner is not responsible for the same and same has to be tackled by the second respondent with the Tourism Department. In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to disburse the admitted balance payment due to the petitioner in respect of the work referred to in the writ petition, within a period of three months.

¶28

Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C)No.28833 of 2019

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/03/2013 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/05/2013 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY WHICH THE TIME FOR COMPLETION OF WORK AS EXTENDED TILL 17/06/2014. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/06/2014 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY WHICH THE TIME FOR COMPLETION OF WORK AS EXTENDED TILL 16/06/2015. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/06/2015 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY WHICH THE TIME FOR COMPLETION OF WORK WAS EXTENDED TILL 31/01/2016. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 05/05/2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/07/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶35

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶36

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

PA TO JUDGE

¶39

Rajoy Joseph P.J., v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajoy Joseph P.J., 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

Sarika.P.S Vs the Director of Printing

K.Muraleedharan Vs District Collector

Shamem M.S. Vs State of Kerala

Deva Priya R (Minor) Vs Director of General Education

R.Suraj Vs Kerala Water Authority

Shijoy Vs State of Kerala