Dismissed

Sudeep v.Nair v. State of Kerala (Deleted)

Kerala HC24 Feb 2020WP(C)/2347/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to complete the suspended construction of Padaharam Bridge. The High Court found the work order was cancelled due to the contractor's subletting and poor progress. The petition was dismissed allowing the project authority to proceed with re-tendering. No substantial legal principle established.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Respondent No. 2 permitted to proceed with re-tendering.

Sudeep v.Nair Vs State of Kerala (Deleted) — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No.2347 OF 2020(P)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

SUDEEP V.NAIR, AGED 37 YEARS ADVOCATE, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 353 (4/217), PATHIL, 6, THEKKEKARA, CHAMPAKKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 503

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP SHRI.HARISANKAR R SHRI.SREERAJ M.D.

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695 001. (DELETED)

¶13

(RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 28/01/2020 IN WPC.)

¶14

2 THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695 001

¶15

3 KERALA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND BOARD (K.I.I.F.B.) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 2ND FLOOR, FELICITY SQUARE, KODER LANE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695 001

¶16

W.P.(C). No. 2347 OF 2020

¶17

-2-

¶18

4 KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD (K.R.F.B.), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TC 4/1654, MAYOORAM, BELHAVEN GARDENS, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 003

¶19

5 SEGURO FOUNDATIONS AND STRUCTURES PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DOOR NO.27/635 A4, 2ND FLOOR, CHAKKAPPAN CENTRE, TOLL GATE, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. PIN - 682 024

¶20

6 M/S. METRIC INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, XVI/43, POST OFFICE JUNCTION, POOVANS ARCADE, ARAKUZHA ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. PIN - 686 661

¶21

7 THE ASST. ENGINEER, BRIDGES SECTION, KPWD, THAKAZHY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN - 688 562

¶22

R7 BY SRI. TEK CHAND,SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

W.P.(C) No. 2347/2020

¶25

: 3 :

¶26

Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2020.

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

S. Manikumar, CJ

¶29

The petitioner, a public spirited citizen and a lawyer by profession, has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to resume the construction of Padaharam Bridge forthwith and to complete the construction of the same, within a time frame.

¶30

Brief facts are that the State decided to construct a bridge in the Nedumudi Panchayat by name 'Padaharam Bridge'. The 5^th respondent was the successful bidder for the construction of the bridge across the Pamba river for an amount of Rs.55 Crores. The construction work was started in June, 2019. According to the petitioner, all the machineries required for proceeding with the construction were put in place and 12 piles out of 60-70 piles were cast and the work was progressing in a fast pace. But, all of a sudden, all works have been suspended and the bridge site is now idling. It is further submitted that the steel and machinery for construction work has started rusting.

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 2347/2020 : 4 :

¶32

Aggrieved by the inaction, this writ petition is filed.

¶33

Respondent No.7 has filed a statement refuting the contentions of the writ petitioner. In the statement, it is stated that the site was handed over to the contractor on 08.03.2019 and the time for completion of the work was fixed as 07.03.2021. The total length of the bridge is 441 meters. The work of 8 piles out of 84 piles has been completed. While so, the contractor has sublet the work without the prior consent of the agreement authority. Since the progress of the work was very poor and unsatisfactory and that the Contractor has sublet the work, without the prior consent of the agreement authority, the work was terminated, at the risk and cost of the contractor by the Project Director, PMU-KRFB, Thiruvananthapuram by order dated 03.01.2020. Materials and machineries mentioned in the writ petition are owned by the contractor. It is also stated that the rusted steel will not be used for construction purpose.

¶34

It is further stated that the balance work is

¶35

tendered by the Project Director, PMU-KRFB, Thiruvananthapuram with the date of opening of tender as

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 2347/2020

¶37

: 5 :

¶38

28.02.2020. The work of the project is expected to be started by March, 2020 and the construction of the work is expected to be completed within two years. It is further stated that it is not due to any administrative laches that the work of the bridge was delayed and it is due to the slow progress and subletting of the work which led to the standstill of the work of the bridge in question. The contractor who was awarded the work has been removed from the work and re-tender proceedings are in progress so as to restart the work at the earliest and complete within two years from the date of resumption of the work.

¶39

5. In that view of the matter, we find that respondent No.5 could not complete the work, as undertaken and therefore, work order has been cancelled and re-tender has been issued. The balance work is re-tendered by the Project Director, PMU-KRFB, Thiruvananthapuram with the date of opening of tender as 28.02.2020.

¶40

Moreover, the cancellation of the work order has not been challenged by respondent No.5. The Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, second

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 2347/2020

¶42

: 6 :

¶43

respondent, is permitted to proceed with the re-tender, subject to challenge, if any. If challenged, writ court is requested to consider the above facts.

¶44

With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶45

sd/-

¶46

S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶47

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶48

¶49

W.P.(C) No. 2347/2020 : 7 :

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS, 6 IN NOS. SHOWING THE PRESENT STATE OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE OF PADHAARAAAM BRIDGE, NNEMUDI, ALAPPUZHA

¶53

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶54

/True Copy/

¶55

PS to Judge.

¶56

Sudeep v.Nair v. State of Kerala (Deleted)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudeep v.Nair v. State of Kerala (Deleted)

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

Kunnath Chandrasekharan Vs Rajnish Kumar

P.Sundareswaran @ Raman Vs State of Kerala

Ummer Nechikkadan Vs Nilambur Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Visakhmon Vs the Director General of Police

John Varghese, Vs State of Kerala

Moosa Vs Toffy