Allowed

Radhakrishnan O., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Nov 2020WP(C)/21289/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, a contractor who completed specified works under a personal agreement, sought approval of his final bill. The court directed the respondents to make the payment due under the Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 agreements within two months, holding that the petitioner is not personally liable for penalties imposed on the principal contractor. The petition was disposed of by gr

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to make the payment due to petitioner on basis of Ext.P1 agreement and Ext.P2 bill within two months from date of receipt of copy of judgment.

Radhakrishnan O., 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.21289 OF 2020(I)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

RADHAKRISHNAN O., AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. OMMINI, KRISHNAVILASAM, CHOOLATHERUVU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.JOMY GEORGE SRI.R.PADMARAJ SRI.M.J.BENNY SRI.DEEPAK MOHAN SMT.CHITRA N. DAS SRI.T.K.SHAIJ RAJ SHRI.RISHAB S.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.

¶10

2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES (IR) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.

¶11

3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, INLAND NAVIGATION AND KUTTAND PACKAGE, PAZHAVEEDU P.O., ALAPPUZHA 688 009.

¶12

4 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KUTTANAD DEVELOPMENT CIRCLE, CHANGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA 689 121.

¶13

5 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA 689 121.

¶14

BY ADV. SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, 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.21289 OF 2020(I)

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner, has undertaken the

¶20

work “Kuttanad Package FMP Mitigation of Flood in water shed of Onattukara region-Mitigation of floods in Karipuzha water sheds part XVI – Mitigation of floods in padasekharams and renovation of various thodus in Krishnapuram Panchayath Reach 2” pursuant to Ext.P1 agreement dated 19.12.2014 and completed the work on 22.12.2018.

¶21

2. It is stated that the 5^th respondent had already approved the final bill as per Ext.P2. But it was not released on the ground that the petitioner was the power of attorney holder in respect of a work undertaken by

¶22

Smt.Sukumaran Priya and that work was terminated at the risk and cost as per Ext.P3 proceedings on 05.09.2019.

¶23

WP(C).No.21289 OF 2020(I)

¶24

¶25

3. According to the petitioner, the work

¶26

carried out by him on the basis of a separate agreement in his personal capacity cannot in any way affect the work undertaken by him in his capacity as power of attorney and the payment in respect of the work undertaken by him in his personal capacity is liable to be made.

¶27

4. The 4^th respondent has filed a statement pointing out that as per clause 7 of the power of attorney, the petitioner is liable for the loss caused to the Government.

¶28

5. However, I am of the view that payment towards the work undertaken by the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P1 agreement executed by him in his personal capacity and which is admittedly completed, cannot be affected by any penalty imposed on another contractor on the basis of Ext.P3 proceedings, though

¶29

WP(C).No.21289 OF 2020(I)

¶30

¶31

petitioner was a power of attorney holder of the contractor with respect to that work. The power of attorney holder cannot have any personal liability, which the original contractor is having and the penalty imposed in Ext.P3 can only affect the principal contractor.

¶32

Therefore there shall be a direction to the respondents to make the payment due to petitioner on the basis of Ext.P1 agreement as well as Ext.P2 bill, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶33

Accordingly, the writ petition is

disposed of.

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

WP(C).No.21289 OF 2020(I)

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 19.12.2014 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶42

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF CREDIT G.O.(RT) NO.4417/2020/FIN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 01.08.2020 WITH REGARD TO RUNNING ACCOUNT BIL CC 3RD AND FINAL BILL. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2019 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.06.2020 FROM KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION.

¶43

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT R4(A): TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY.

Radhakrishnan O., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrishnan O., 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

Lovely Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh J.Pai Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Anvardeen.K Vs Union of India