Disposed

P.B.Dinesh Kumar, v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Kerala HC7 Mar 2019WP(C)/4787/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contractor sought release of security deposit withheld by the Executive Engineer of the Cochin Devaswom Board. The High Court directed the Executive Engineer to finalize the petitioner's representation and release the deposit unless legal inhibitions exist.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd Respondent to finalize Ext.P3 within three weeks and release the security deposit forthiften there are no legal inhibitions.

P.B.Dinesh Kumar, Vs Cochin Devaswom Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 4787 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

P.B.DINESH KUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS S/O P S BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR,

¶8

RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEEDU, THENGODE.P.O, THENGODE, KAKKANAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.G.G.MANOJ SRI.S.SARATH PRASAD

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND WEST, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2 SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND WEST, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 001.

¶13

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND WEST, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 001.

¶14

4 THE BRANCH MANAGER, DHANALAXMI BANK, MAIN BRANCH, NAICKANAL JUNCTION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 001.

¶15

WP(C).No. 4787 of 2019

¶16

¶17

K.P.SUDHEER SC,,P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN SC

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 4787 of 2019

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Petitioner is a registered A Class Contractor with the Public Works Department, who has undertaken certain works of the 1^st respondent Devaswom Board. According to the petitioner, the work was completed to the satisfaction of the 1^st respondent. However, the security provided by the petitioner by way of fixed deposit receipt drawn on the 4^th respondent bank is not returned. Even though petitioner made his best efforts, the security was not released. Thereupon, petitioner has also submitted Ext.P3 before the 3^rd respondent, which is also pending consideration.

¶23

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respective Counsel appearing for the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 3^rd respondent to finalise Ext.P3, at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I also make it clear that if there are no legal inhibitions or issues standing in the way for returning the security deposit, it shall be released to the petitioner forthwith.

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Jm/

WP(C).No. 4787 of 2019

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶33

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 20.12.2004. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 31.07.2015 VIDE ORDER NO.H1.3291/10. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.10.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.3.

P.B.Dinesh Kumar, v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.B.Dinesh Kumar, v. Cochin Devaswom Board

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

Reena Vs the Union of India

Santhosh Vs the State of Kerala

Meena Jacob Vs Chithra

E.K.Raju Vs the Inspector General of Registration

M.Velayudhankutty Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Neyyar Aqua Products Vs the Divisional Manager