Disposed

Lovely Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Nov 2020WP(C)/15602/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition regarding unpaid construction dues. It directed the Chief Engineer, PWD, to submit a proposal to the Chief Engineer, LSGD, for revised administrative sanction within two months, with subsequent government approval to effect payment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 2nd respondent to send a proposal to 3rd respondent for revised administrative sanction and secure necessary government approval to make payment to the petitioner within the stipulated ti

Lovely Thomas Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1942 WP(C).No.15602 OF 2020(A)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

LOVELY THOMAS, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.THOMAS, PWD 'A' CLASS CONTRACTOR, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, AMRITHAGIRI, ARATTUTHARA P.O, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT- 670645.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) SRI.ANIL ABEY JOSE

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LSGD DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.

¶10

2 CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD BUILDING DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD BUILDINGS DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶11

3 CHIEF ENGINEER, LSGD, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶12

4 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD - BUILDINGS, NORTH CIRCLE, PWD COMPLEX, KOZHIKODE - 673001.

¶13

5 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD-BUILDINGS DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BUILDING DIVISION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD-673122.

¶14

BY ADV. SMT.VINITHA.B., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.15602 OF 2020(A)

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner had undertaken the work of construction of building for GHSS, Valate in Wayanad district. The work was completed on 04.12.2015. These are admitted facts. It is also admitted that a sum of Rs.6,16,858/- is due to the petitioner. This Court had passed an interim order on 22.09.2020 to the 1^st respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for the said amount and to take a decision on it.

¶20

2. The 5^th respondent had filed a counter affidavit stating in paragraph 4 that LSGD had sanctioned and deposited a sum of Rs.1,45,68,126/- for the entire work including civil and electrical works but the deposited amount was insufficient for payment to petitioner.

¶21

3. The learned Government Pleader submits

¶22

WP(C).No.15602 OF 2020(A)

¶23

¶24

that revised administrative sanction from the Chief Engineer, PWD is required for making the payment of balance amount due to petitioner. It is further stated that administrative sanction would be required again from the Government in LSGD.

¶25

Therefore the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2^nd respondent – the Chief Engineer, PWD Building Division to send a proposal to the Chief Engineer, LSGD for revised administrative sanction for the payment to petitioner and shall thereupon take up the matter with the Government who shall grant revised administrative sanction on the basis of the said proposal. All these shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. In case, the sanction from Finance Department is

¶26

WP(C).No.15602 OF 2020(A)

¶27

¶28

necessary, the 1^st respondent shall also get it within the said time. Then payment shall be made to petitioner within another two weeks.

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/-

¶30

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶31

¶32

WP(C).No.15602 OF 2020(A)

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE THE 5TH DATED 1	COPY OF RESPOND 7.03.2017	THE ENT .	COMMUNICATION MADE BY TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE 3/4652/ THE 2ND	COPY OF 2012 ISSU RESPONDE	THE ED B NT D	COMMUNICATION NO. DB- Y THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO ATED 03.05.2017.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE 3/9381/ THE 3RD	COPY OF 2017 ISSU RESPONDE	THE ED B NT D	COMMUNICATION NO. FB Y THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ATED 19.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE THE PET FROM MA	COPY OF ITIONER NANTHAVAD	THE TO Y DA	REPRESENTATION MADE BY SRI.O.R KELU, THE MLA TED 07.02.2018.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE	COPY OF	THE	LETTER NO.A1/915/2015
	ISSUED	BY THE	5TH	RESPONDENT TO SRI.O.R.
	KELU, 18.04.2	THE MLA 018.	FR	OM MANANTHAVADY DATED

Lovely Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lovely Thomas v. State of Kerala

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

John K. Thomas Vs Divisional Forest Officer

Murukan Nair.K Vs State of Kerala

Catholic Federation Charitable Society Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan O., Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh J.Pai Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Anvardeen.K Vs Union of India