Dismissed

M.B.Pradeep v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC23 Jan 2020WP(C)/186/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus for release of work bill and security deposit. Court noted admission of liability by respondents citing financial stringency as cause for delay and directed payment within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to disburse the bill amount and security/retention money within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

M.B.Pradeep Vs Kerala Water Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 3RD MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.186 OF 2020(W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.B.PRADEEP AGED 47 YEARS S/O. BHASAKRAN NAIR, MATHILAKATH HOUSE (X/662 (1)) KOPPARAMBIL DIVINE VILLAGE ROAD, KUSUMAGIRI P.O., KAKKANAD-682 030

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.K.N.RAJANI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685 033

¶11

2 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JANNURM PROJECT DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-682 011

¶12

3 FINANCE MANAGER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685 033

¶13

R1-3 BY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No.186 OF 2020(W)

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following prayers:-

¶19

“A. Call for the records relating to Exhibit P1 to P4 from the respondents.

¶20

B. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or direction, commanding respondents to release the final bill amount due to the petitioner as per Exhibit P4 letter.

¶21

C. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or direction, commanding respondents to release the security deposit and retention amount due to the petitioner in connection with the work executed by the petitioner by Exhibit P1 order.”

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶23

learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶24

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted Exhibits P3 & P4 for works done by him and that the same is liable to be sanctioned and disbursed by the respondents.

¶25

The learned standing counsel for the respondents

¶26

¶27

WP(C).No.186 OF 2020(W)

¶28

submits that the bill amounts are admitted, but it is only due to financial stringency that the amounts have not been disbursed and some time is required to clear off the same.

¶29

In view of the fact that the respondents are admitting the liability and have raised paucity of funds as the reason for the delay, I am of the opinion that the respondents are to be permitted some time to pay the amounts.

¶30

In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the respondents to disburse the bill amount due to the petitioner as covered by Exhibits P3 & P4 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶31

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

Bng/23.01.2020

WP(C).No.186 OF 2020(W)

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO EXECUTIVE THE WORK DATED 29.04.2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27.8.2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER DATED 1.10.2019 PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT STATING THE THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR A NET PAYMENT OF RS.38,62,301/EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT REQUESTING HIM TO RELEASE THE FUND TO THE PETITIONER

M.B.Pradeep v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.B.Pradeep v. Kerala Water Authority

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

M/S Vodafone Idea Limited, Vs Station House Officer

Ullattil Builders Vs the Divisional Railway Manager (Works)

Syam K.S, Vs State of Kerala

Neena Madhanamohanan Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

T.S.Mathew Vs Kerala Water Authority

The Trivandrum District Petroleum Traders Association, Vs the Indian Oil Corporation Limited