Disposed

K.Saidalavi v. the Thrikkadeeri Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC11 Oct 2019WP(C)/3610/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner contractor sought directions for payment of dues for four civil works. Court directed third respondent to scrutinize bills and finalize payable amounts within two weeks, with admitted dues to be released immediately upon approval.

What did the court decide?

Directed third respondent to scrutinize bills and finalize payable amounts within two weeks; admitted dues to be released immediately upon approval.

K.Saidalavi Vs the Thrikkadeeri Grama Panchayath — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 19TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.3610 OF 2017(A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.SAIDALAVI

¶8

AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED,KARINGANTHODI HOUSE, IRIMBALASSERY (P.O.),NELLAYA (VIA), PALAKKAD - 679 335.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE THRIKKADEERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH THRIKKADEERI, PALAKAKD - 679 502.

¶12

2 THE SECRETARY THRIKKADEERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,THRIKKADEERI, PALAKKAD. PIN - 679 502.

¶13

3 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER L.S.G.D SECTION, THRIKKADEERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THRIKKADEERI, PALAKKAD - 679 502.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI R1 BY ADV. SRI.SACHIN VYAS

¶15

SMT.PRINCY XAVIER – GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.3610 OF 2017(A)

¶18

¶19

W.P.(C) No.3610 of 2017

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The petitioner is a contractor who has executed

¶22

four civil works for the first respondent, Thrikkadeeri Grama Panchayat. The case of the petitioner is that though the work entrusted has been executed by him satisfactorily, payments due in respect of the work are not being released. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in this writ petition.

¶23

The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, on instructions, submitted that the bills raised in respect of the works have to be approved by the third respondent, and it is on account of the delay on the part of the third respondent in approving the bills that the payments due to the petitioner are delayed.

¶24

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to scrutinize

¶25

WP(C).No.3610 OF 2017(A)

¶26

¶27

the bills in respect of the four civil works claimed to have been executed by the petitioner for the first respondent Panchayat as referred to in the writ petition, and finalise the amounts payable to the petitioner in respect of the same, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Needless to say that the admitted dues shall be paid to the petitioner by the first respondent immediately upon receiving the approval of the bills from the third respondent.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶30

¶31

WP(C).No.3610 OF 2017(A)

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF TENDER WITH THE AGREEMENT ENTERED IN TO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF KUTTIKODE - KARATTUKURUSSI ROAD TARRING, DATED 16.8.2010.

¶36

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF TENDER WITH THE AGREEMENT ENTERED IN TO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF ENNAUMKANDAM CHAKKUMPALIYAL ROAD, DATED 16.8.10.

¶37

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF TENDER WITH THE AGREEMENT ENTERED IN TO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF KIZHUR - KARIYAMUTTY ROAD, DATED 16.8.10.

¶38

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF TENDER WITH THE AGREEMENT ENTERED IN TO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF ENNAKANDAM ROAD, SOLING TARRING AND METALLING DATED 16.8.10.

¶39

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT SEEKING DISBURSEMENT OF THE AMOUNTS DUE TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18.11.2011.

¶40

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 20.06.16.

¶41

P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.8.2016.

¶42

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶43

\TRUE COPY//

¶44

PA TO JUDGE

¶45

K.Saidalavi v. the Thrikkadeeri Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Saidalavi v. the Thrikkadeeri Grama Panchayath

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 J Babu., Vs Union Bank of India

C.D.Varghese @ C.D.Jolly Vs the District Collector

The Administrator, Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences

Soopy Vs the Principal Secreary to Government

Raviraj.S Vs Branch Manager, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Kalidasa Hotels Vs the State of Kerala