Allowed

Mohammed Rasheed C., v. the Kottakkal Muncipality

Kerala HC29 Jan 2019WP(C)/760/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Municipality's failure to secure technical sanction absolves it from handicap if works are completed without defects. The petitioners, conveners of a Beneficiary Committee, were directed to release payments for completed works.

What did the court decide?

Directs the Municipality to release 50% of the amounts to the petitioners within 45 days and the balance within a further period of 45 days from the date of the first payment.

Mohammed Rasheed C., Vs the Kottakkal Muncipality — 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

TUESDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 9TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 760 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 MOHAMMED RASHEED C., AGED 38 YEARS

¶8

S/O.HAMSA HAJI, CHERATTA HOUSE, EAST VILLOOR, INDIANOOR P.O., KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2 MOIDEEN K., S/O.AHAMMAD, KUNDIL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM.

¶10

3 HAKEEM ANAPADIKKAL, S/O.SAIDALAVI, ANAPADIKKAL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

4 NOUSHAD C.K., S/O.MOHAMMED KUTTY, CHERUKATTIL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

5 GOVINDAKUTTY, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,PAROL MADATHIL, NAYADIPPARA, KOTTAKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

6 SULAIMAN K., S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, KUNNATHODI HOUSE, MARAVATTOM, INDIANOOR P.O., KOTTAKKAL MALAPPURAM.

¶14

7 MOIDEENKUTTY P.P., S/O.MOHAMMEDKUTTY, PALLIYALIPEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, KADAMPUZHA P.O., MARAVATTOM.

¶15

8 MOHAMMEDKUTTY K., S/O.MOIDU K., KAVUNGAL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.SAIDALAVI SMT.AMRIN FATHIMA SRI.K.K.NASRUL HAQUE

¶17

WP(C).No. 760 of 2019

¶18

¶19

RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE KOTTAKKAL MUNCIPALITY, P.O.KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2 THE SECRETARY, KOTTAKKAL MUNICIPALITY, P.O.KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM676 503. 3 THE MINICIPAL ENGINEER, KOTTAKKAL MUNICIPALITY, P.O.KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM676 503. 4 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, L.S.G.D. SUB DIVISION, P.O.THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM- 676 306.

¶20

SRI.P.M.MANOJ,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.E.S.M.KABEER,SC

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No. 760 of 2019

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Petitioners are Conveners of Beneficiary Committee, who have completed their works awarded to them by the 1^st respondent in the year 2015-16 under People's Planning Programme. According to the petitioners, the works were completed to the satisfaction of the Municipality, however, when the bills were raised, the same is not released and in spite of earnest efforts of the petitioners, no action is being taken by the Municipality to release the amounts to the petitioners, which constrained the petitioners to approach this Court, by filing this writ petition.

¶26

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the Municipality and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶27

Learned Counsel for the Municipality submitted that, even though the work was completed by the petitioners, necessary sanction from the District Planning Committee, and technical sanction was also not obtained by the Municipality.

¶28

In my considered view, when the works were completed, and there are no defects to the work, the Municipality is duty bound to honour the bills. Securing technical sanction from statutory authority is the lookout of the Municipality. It is for the Municipality to ensure that technical sanctions are secured from the responsible

¶29

¶30

WP(C).No. 760 of 2019

¶31

committee. In my considered opinion for that matter, the payments due to the petitioners cannot be detained, if there are no defects in the works carried out by the petitioner.

¶32

Taking into account all these aspects. and hearing learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the Municipality, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the Municipality to release 50% of the amounts to the petitioners within 45 days and the balance within a further period of 45 days from the date of payment as directed above.

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Jm/

WP(C).No. 760 of 2019

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO.55/15-16 DATED 03.10.2015. EXHIBIT P1 B TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO.38/15-16 DATED 03.10.2015. EXHIBIT P1 C TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO.31/15-16 DATED 03.10.2015. EXHIBIT P1 D TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO.58/15-16 DATED 03.10.2015. EXHIBIT P1 E TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO.49/AE/KTKL/14-15 DATED 9.12.2014,16. EXHIBIT P1 F TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO.67/15-16 DATED 01.03.2016. EXHIBIT P1 G TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO.70/15-16 DATED 01.03.2016. EXHIBIT P1 H TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO.128/AE/KTKL/14-15 DATED 21.3.2015. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF FINAL BILL FOR THE WORK DONE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR RS.2,77,267/-

¶42

WP(C).No. 760 of 2019

¶43

¶44

EXHIBIT P2 B	TRUE COPY OF FINAL BILL FOR THE WORK DONE BY THE 2ND PETITIONER FOR RS.4,99,993/-
EXHIBIT P2 C	TRUE COPY OF FINAL BILL FOR THE WORK DONE BY THE 3RD PETITIONER FOR RS.4,65,136/-
EXHIBIT P2 D	TRUE COPY OF FINAL BILL FOR THE WORK DONE BY THE 4TH PETITIONER FOR RS.2,40,088/-
EXHIBIT P2 E	TRUE COPY OF FINAL BILL FOR THE WORK DONE BY THE 5TH PETITIONER FOR RS.2,99,998/-
EXHIBIT P2 F	TRUE COPY OF FINAL BILL FOR THE WORK DONE BY THE 6TH PETITIONER FOR RS.4,66,942/-
EXHIBIT P2 G	TRUE COPY OF FINAL BILL FOR THE WORK DONE BY THE 7TH PETITIONER FOR RS.4,06,739/-
EXHIBIT P2 H	TRUE COPY OF FINAL BILL FOR THE WORK DONE BY THE 8TH PETITIONER FOR RS.2,14,969/-

Mohammed Rasheed C., v. the Kottakkal Muncipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Rasheed C., v. the Kottakkal Muncipality

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

R.Sivasankara Pillai Vs District Collector

Nicholas P.Dias, Vs Instacure Surgical and Medical Centre (Pvt) Ltd.

Aneesa.T.K. Vs the Assistant Director of Panchayats

Sebastian K.John Vs Geologist

Raman Vs Parakadavu Grama Panchayath

George John Vs Tony Vincent