Allowed

Vijaya Ele-Techs (P) Ltd. v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala HC4 Feb 2020WP(C)/5531/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the payment of a balance amount for electrical contract works executed by the petitioner. The court held that the Corporation could not act in deviation from the petitioner's undertaking in an affidavit and issued a writ of mandamus directing payment of the balance within one month.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus directed to make the payment of the balance amount within one month from today, with simple interest at 9% per annum, escalating to 12% if not paid in time.

Vijaya Ele-Techs (P) Ltd. Vs Corporation of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 15TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.5531 OF 2019(N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VIJAYA ELE-TECHS (P) LTD EPXII/61, MANJUMMEL, UDYOGAMANDAL PO, KOCHI - 683 501, REP. BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, S. JAYATHILAKAN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O K SREEDHARAN NAIR.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) SRI.KAYALATT KUTTYKRISHNAN SMT.SINDHU SANTHALINGAM

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CORPORATION BUILDINGS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

R1 BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION

¶12

SR ADV NANDAKUMARA MENON, SRI. P. SANTHALINGAM SR.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.5531 OF 2019(N)

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction

¶18

of this Court to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to make the balance payment of a limited liability. Inter alia on the ground that being a reputed ‘A’ class electrical contractor, engaged in electrical contract work tender submitted by him was accepted by the respondent Corporation and sanction notice dated 17.07.2010 was issued. The work was awarded with a tender excess of 15% of the standard rate. An agreement of awarding the work on assurance of performance was executed. The work was completed in efficient manner and Electrical Inspector, after thorough inspection conducted at the site, accorded sanction for energisation of installation. It was done on 22.03.2012. The measurements for the completed works were certified by the electrical wing of the Public Works Department and bills in respect to the said work were forwarded without any delay. The total value of the work executed by the petitioner was Rs.1,13,10,480.41/- which was in excess of the technical sanctioned amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/-.

¶19

WP(C).No.5531 OF 2019(N)

¶20

¶21

The learned Senior Counsel, P.Santhalingam submits

¶22

that the respondents have admitted the liability to take the amount after approval of the technical committee of the Public Works Department. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the affidavits dated 21.11.2016 and 22.02.2017 (Exts.P16 and P17). The learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation drawn the attention of this Court to Ext.P10 letter whereby the petitioner has undertaken to confine his claim to Rs.1,10,00,000/- owing to the lapse of the fund for the relevant financial year and now he steps into espouse the grievance as claimed in the present writ petition.

¶23

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the action of the Municipal Corporation in reading Ext.P10 against the petitioner is totally against the settled provision of law, rather in deviation of the undertaking reflected in the affidavit dated 22.02.2017, which stated as under.

¶24

“3. It is respectfully submitted that an amount of Rs.16.50 lakhs has been paid to the petitioner on 11-22016 and for the payment of an amount of Rs.3,10,480/being the amount due for the additional works carried out by the petitioner a letter dated 4-2-2017 has been sent to

¶25

WP(C).No.5531 OF 2019(N)

¶26

¶27

the Chief Engineer, Building and Local Works PWD, Electrical Division, Thiruvananthapuram, by the Corporation. The photostat copy of the said letter is produced herewith and is marked as Annexxure-A. But till now the technical sanction has not been received from the Office of the Chief Engineer. But the amount of Rs.1,01,873/- being the security deposit offered by the petitione has also been released to the petitioner by cash certificate on 16-2-2017 and the same has been communicated to the petitioner over Telephone.”

¶28

Undertaking of an extra work is not in dispute. The

¶29

contractor, who has to keep the liquid amount ready for execution of the work, for meeting of the exigencies, despite having been run from pillar to post for claiming the limited liability, had to confine his prayer for Rs.1,10,00,000/- in the letter Ext.P10 dated 04.02.2013. But the subsequent affidavit leaves none under doubt that the aforementioned claim have been forgone, rather was deferred.

¶30

On consideration of the matter, I am of the view that this is a fit case where the writ in the nature of mandamus is required to be issued to the Municipal Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram to make the payment of balance amount within a period of one month from today. Since the amount is

¶31

WP(C).No.5531 OF 2019(N)

¶32

¶33

due since 2013, I deem it appropriate also to grant simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In case, the amount is not paid within one month, it shall entail interest @ 12%, till the

payment is made.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

nak

WP(C).No.5531 OF 2019(N)

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E13/27308/10 DATED 29/3/2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ELECTRICAL WING, TRIVANDRUM.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/10/2013 IN O P NO.1258/13 OF THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY IF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/3/2016 IN W P (C) 11184/2015 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY IF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/11/2016 IN I A NO. 19402/2016 IN WP(c) 11184/2015 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/7/2017 IN CON.CASE(C) NO.95/2017 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. EL 4-378* E/2010 DATED 4/7/2017 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER ELECTRICAL, PWD BUILDS., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE REWSPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ENCLOSURE.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/8/2018 SENT BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2/9/2018 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DTD. 1/2/2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04/02/2013 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) PWD,

¶44

WP(C).No.5531 OF 2019(N)

¶45

¶46

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶47

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/03/2013 SEND BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/03/2013 SEND BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/03/2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION. EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.3E (18) DATED 31/01/2014 PASSED BY THE CORPORATION. EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT TOGETHER WITH PETITION DDTD 28/2/2017 IN WPC (11184/2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON,BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT TOGETHER WITH PETITION DTD 2/11/2016 IN WPC 1184)2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT FILED BY HON,BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATMENT TOGETHER WITH ANNEXURE TD. 22/2/2017 IN CON.OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) 95/2017 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEOFRE THE HON,BLE COURT

¶48

//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Vijaya Ele-Techs (P) Ltd. v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaya Ele-Techs (P) Ltd. v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

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

Sanath K.P Vs Kozhikode Municipal Corporation

Sooppy Narikkatteri Vs State Election Commission

The Kerala Panchayat Employees Organization Vs the State of Kerala

The Uralungal Labour Contract Co. Operative Society Vs Union of India

Suresh Kumar a. Vs the District Geologist

Beena Davis Vs the District Collector