Allowed

V.Mohammed Basheer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Dec 2020WP(C)/9082/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court set aside orders imposing a fine and forfeiting the security deposit of a contractor who completed works within an extended time granted by the Forest Officer. The Court directed the release of dues within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition allowed. Orders imposing fine and forfeiting security deposits quashed. Respondents directed to release security deposit within two months.

V.Mohammed Basheer Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY,THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020/30TH AGRAHAYANA,1942 WP(C).No.9082 OF 2020(I)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

V.MOHAMMED BASHEER, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. IMBICHI BAVA, PWD CONTRACTOR, REG.NO.318-A, SHAJI COTTAGE, KARUVANTHIRUTHY P.O., FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673 631.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SHRI.PRAVEEN S. SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G SRI.DIPU JAMES SHRI.MATHEW K.T. SHRI.GEORGE K.V.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶10

2 KERALA POLICE HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD,REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHANDRASHEKHARAN NAIR STADIUM, PALAYAM, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶11

3 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA POLICE HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD, CHANDRASHEKHARAN NAIR STADIUM, PALAYAM, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶12

4 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SOUTH WAYANAD DIVISION, PINANGODE ROAD, KALPETTA, WAYANAD-673121.

¶13

WP(C) No.9082/2020

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

5 THE PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA POLICE HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD, OD SECTION, KOZHIKODE FOR WORKS AND FOREST DEPARTMENT IN CHETHELATH RANGE,KALPETTA, WAYANAD-673 121.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ncd

WP(C) No.9082/2020

: 3 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 21^st day of December, 2020

¶24

The petitioner was awarded certain contract works

¶25

by the respondents as is evidenced by Exts.P1 to P5. The works were of respondents 1 and 4, executed through the 2^nd respondent-Corporation. The works had to be completed within a stipulated period. However, it appears that the works could not be completed by the deadline. Ext.P11 proceedings of the 4^th respondent-Divisional Forest Officer would show that the time for completion of work was extended till 15.12.2016, without imposing any fine.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶27

that pursuant to Ext.P11, on completion of works, security deposits were released to various contractors as per Ext.P12.

¶28

However, the petitioner has not been repaid the security amount. In the meanwhile, the 3^rd respondent passed

¶29

WP(C) No.9082/2020

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

Exts.P13 to P15 orders imposing penalty on the petitioner and forfeiting the security deposit made by the petitioner.

¶32

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for

¶33

respondents 2, 3 and 5 would submit that since the petitioner did not complete the work within the period originally agreed to, they are entitled to impose fine and forfeit the security deposit. The fact that the Divisional Forest Officer has issued Ext.P11 order cannot bind respondents 2, 3 and 5 since the petitioner has not completed the work within the stipulated period. The Standing Counsel would further submit that if the DFO has extended the time for completion of work without imposing fine, without the leave and permission of the DFO, a security deposit cannot be released to the petitioner and hence the fine imposed is justified.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2, 3 and 5.

¶35

It is evident from the pleadings that though the

¶36

WP(C) No.9082/2020

¶37

: 5 :

¶38

petitioner could not complete the work entrusted with him within the stipulated period, the 4^th respondent has granted extension of time till 15.12.2016 without imposing any fine. The fact that the petitioner has completed the work within the extended time is not in dispute. The time has been extended by the principal employer, making it clear that no fine will be imposed on the petitioner for enlargement of time. It obviously means that the delay in completion of work is not attributable to the petitioner.

¶39

In the circumstances, this Court finds no reason to justify Exts.P13 to P15 orders imposing fine on the petitioner and forfeiting the security deposits.

¶40

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P13 to P15 orders are set aside. The respondents are directed to release the amounts due to the petitioner as security deposit within a period of two months.

¶41

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/21.12.2020

WP(C) No.9082/2020

: 6 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF W	ORK ORDER NO.
	KPHCC/7144(A)/ODR/2015 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDEN	DATED 28.05.2015 T.
EXHIBIT P1(a)	TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT 07.07.2015.	NO.141/15-16 DATED
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF WORK 7149/ODR/2015 DATED 28 3RD RESPONDENT.	ORDER NO.KPHCC/ .05.2015 ISSUED BY
EXHIBIT P2(a)	TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT 07.07.2015.	NO.142/15-16 DATED
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF NO.KPHCC/7144/ODR/2015 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDEN	WORK ORDER DATED 28.05.2015 T.
EXHIBIT P3(a)	TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT 07.07.2015.	NO.143/15-16 DATED
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE KPHCC/341/ODR/2015 D ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDEN	WORK ORDER NO. ATED 28.05.2015 T.
EXHIBIT P4(a)	TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT 07.07.2015.	NO.144/15-16 DATED
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF WORK ORDE ODR/2015 DATED 28.05.2 RESPONDENT.	R NO.KPHCC/7149(A)/ 015 ISSUED BY 3RD
EXHIBIT P5(a)	TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT 07.07.2015.	NO.145/15-16 DATED
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF ORDER ODR/2015 DATED 11.04.2 RESPONDENT.	NO.KPHCC/7144(A)/ 017 ISSUED BY 3RD
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF	ORDER NO.
	KPHCC/7149/ODR/2015 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDEN	DATED 24.03.2017 T.

¶48

WP(C) No.9082/2020

¶49

: 7 :

¶50

EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE	COPY OF	ORDER	NO.	KPHCC/7144/	ODR/
	2015 RESPO	DATED NDENT.	27.03.2	017	ISSUED BY	3RD
EXHIBIT	P9 TRUE DATED RESPO	COPY OF O 11.04.2 NDENT.	RDER N 017 I	O. KP SSUED	HCC/341/ODR/ BY THE	2015 3RD
EXHIBIT	P10 TRUE ODR/2 3RD R	COPY OF 015(23) ESPONDENT	ORDER DATED 2 .	NO. 4.03.	KPHCC/7149 2017 ISSUE	(A)/ D BY
EXHIBIT	P11 TRUE 10.10	COPY OF .2017 ISS	ORDER UED BY	NO. 4TH R	D-7456/13 D ESPONDENT.	ATED
EXHIBIT	P12 TRUE DATED RESPO	COPY OF 31.10 NDENT.	ORDER .2017	NO.40 ISS	3/KPHCC/2015 UED BY	/ODR 3RD
EXHIBIT	P13 TRUE 2015/ RESPO	COPY OF 22 DATED NDENT.	ORDER 11.02.	NO. 2020	KPHCC/7149/ ISSUED BY	ODR/ 3RD
EXHIBIT	P14 TRUE 2015/ RESPO	COPY OF 9 DATED NDENT.	ORDER 11.02.	NO. 2020	KPHCC/7149/ ISSUED BY	ODR/ 3RD
EXHIBIT	P15 TRUE 2015/ RESPO	COPY OF 23 DATED NDENT.	ORDER 11.02.	NO. 2020	KPHCC/7149/ ISSUED BY	ODR/ 3RD

V.Mohammed Basheer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Mohammed Basheer 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

T.T.Sunny, Vs Kitco Ltd.

Aruna P. Vs the State of Kerala

Joshy Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Rakhul Krishnan Vs Union of India

Remya Vs the State of Kerala

Rohini Vs the District Collector