Partly allowed

Ravi Kulangara v. the Secretary

Kerala HC15 Feb 2019WP(C)/2889/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court held that it cannot exercise jurisdiction over the contractual obligation between the petitioner and the Electricity Board, as it warrants the Board's decision. However, it directed the Board to consider the petitioner's representation (Ext.P5) before taking action, to be heard within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition held not maintainable for quashing Ext.P4 or directing payment. Direction issued to Respondent 1 to consider Ext.P5 representation and pass orders after hearing within 3 weeks.

Ravi Kulangara Vs the Secretary — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 26TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 2889 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

RAVI KULANGARA AGED 50 YEARS S/O. KARAKKAKAVIL GOVINDAN, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SUN ENERGY SOLUTIONS, KAYYUR ROAD JUNCTION, CHERUVATHUR, KASARAGOD-671 313.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.R.LEELA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶11

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY SAVING)

¶12

KSEB LTD., 9TH FLOOR, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.N.SATHEESH

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 2889 of 2019 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The writ petition is filed seeking the

¶18

following reliefs :-

¶19

''i) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing Exhibits P4 as arbitrary and illegal.

¶20

ii) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to initiate immediate steps to direct the officials to submit the joint inspection report for considering the part payment of the completed works and also 50% of payment for major material supplied.

¶21

Iii) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 and extend time by 3 months for completion of the works.''

¶22

2. Heard the learned counsel for the

¶23

petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel

¶24

appearing for the KSEB.

¶25

petitioner would submit that the works taken

¶26

WP(C).No. 2889 of 2019 3

¶27

up by the petitioner had been substantially

¶28

carried out, but no part bills have been paid to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner could not complete the work to the satisfaction of the respondents only

¶29

because of financial stringency. It is stated that Ext.P5 representation has been preferred by the petitioner before the first

¶30

respondent and that the same may be considered and disposed of before any action is taken against the petitioner.

¶31

The learned Standing Counsel

¶32

appearing for the respondents would contend that the petitioner had been put on notice

¶33

that there was serious short fall in the

¶34

work done and that the works had not been

¶35

completed by the petitioner. It is also stated that several opportunities had been

¶36

given to the petitioner and the time had

¶37

WP(C).No. 2889 of 2019 4

¶38

also been extended without any penalty being imposed. However, after the terms of the supplementary agreements entered into between the parties expired on 31.10.2018, no further supplementary agreement had been entered into by the petitioner in spite of being put on notice.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I am of the opinion that the issue which relates to a contractual obligation between the petitioner and the first respondent, is a matter where this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction. It is for the first respondent to take an appropriate decision in the matter.

¶40

There will be a direction to the first respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 representation preferred by the petitioner before taking

¶41

WP(C).No. 2889 of 2019 5

¶42

any action against the petitioner. Orders

¶43

shall be passed after hearing the petitioner also, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

The writ petition is ordered

accordingly.

SD/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

ACM/16.02.2019

JUDGE

WP(C).No. 2889 of 2019 6

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTER GENERATED PRINT OUTS DETAILING THE TOTAL INVOICE SUBMITTED AT VARIOUS SECTIONS OF KSEB TILL 27.2.2018.

¶54

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.8329/2018 DATED 28.3.2018.

¶55

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF HEARING HELD ON 24.5.201/ BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶56

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.CE(REES)/TOTAL ELECTRIFICATION/2018-19/1517 DATED 28.11.2018 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶57

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.1.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

Ravi Kulangara v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kulangara v. the Secretary

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

V. Udayakumar, Vs State of Kera

Nithin Lukose, Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Mathew Michael, Vs Dhanlaxmi Bank

Thomas Kandanchery Vs State of Kerala

Jose.P.v., Vs the Divisional Forest Officer

K.I.Joseph, Vs the Commissioner(Land Revenue)