Disposed

T.T.Sunny v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jan 2021WP(C)/10192/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the dispute regarding the completion of road work and quantum of payment is a question of fact unsuitable for writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a representation with the Respondents.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the petitioner to approach the 1st Respondent with a detailed representation to claim dues and refund of security deposit within one month.

T.T.Sunny Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/5TH MAGHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.10192 OF 2017(Y)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

T.T.SUNNY, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, P.W.D. CONTRACTOR, THANDAKKATTIL HOUSE, MEENANGADI P.O., WAYANAD - 673 591.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISIONS BRIDGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS AND BRIDGES, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA - 683 001.

¶13

BY G.P. SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.01.2021,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.10192/2017

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2021

¶19

The petitioner executed Ext.P2 agreement for the work 'Vision 2010-Construction of new bye pass road starting from Thankalam Junction to Kozhippilly crossing N.H.49 from ch.0/000 to 2/811'.

¶20

The petitioner states that he could not complete

¶21

the entire work due to reasons beyond his control and the 3^rd respondent is liable to disburse balance bill amount in respect of the work already completed by him.

¶22

From the pleadings it is evident that Ext.P2 agreement was executed on 01.01.2010 and the work had to be completed within 18 months. `3,87,56,872/- was the P.A.C. amount. It is stated that certain litigations arose

¶23

during the execution of the work and work had to be stopped. The learned Government Pleader would submit

¶24

¶25

WP(C)No.10192/2017

¶26

that the petitioner stopped the work on 26.07.2010.

¶27

For the work done by the petitioner, a part bill

¶28

was raised and the respondents have released `62,54,155.24 which has been received by the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that further amounts are due to him. The petitioner submitted Ext.P12 representation requesting to settle his bills and not to terminate contract till then. In Ext.P12, the petitioner also expressed his readiness to continue and complete the work.

¶29

From Ext.P7, it can be seen that a review

¶30

meeting was convened in respect of the work by the Superintending Engineer, Aluva R & B and it was decided to terminate the contract without invoking the 'risk and cost' clause against the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the work has already been re-tendered after issuing Ext.P15 Notice Inviting Tender.

¶31

¶32

WP(C)No.10192/2017

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶34

argue that further amounts are due to him and if retendered work is commenced without taking measurements, the petitioner will be put to hardship and loss. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand would state that for the work completed by the petitioner, amount of `62,54,155.24 has been paid to the petitioner and no more amounts are due to him.

¶35

The dispute therefore is on a question of fact. Whether the petitioner has completed the work for cost

¶36

exceeding `62,54,155.24 cannot be decided in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶37

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the 1^st respondent with a detailed representation. If the 1^st respondent receives such a representation within a period of one month, the 1^st respondent shall consider the claims of the petitioner including his claim for refund of security deposit/bank

¶38

¶39

¶40

guarantee/performance guarantee and take a decision thereon within a further period of three months.

¶41

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

ncd

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE SELECATION NOTICE WAS
	ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 09.12.2009 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COY OF THE ORDER NO. D.M.K- 3897/02 DATED 01.1.2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.8.2010 ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND COPY OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 15.1.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 25.9.2012 SUBMITTED BYT HE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. CER&B/MVA/BW/8813/2009 DATED 31.10.2012 OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER TO 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 23.9.2010 REFERRED TO IN EXT.P6.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE LAST REPRESENTATION DATED 11.1.2017 SUBMITTED TO THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 07.7.2014 IN WPC NO. 9929/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (RT) NO 1243/2019/ PWD DT.26.10.2019
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NUMBER

¶48

¶49

¶50

	A9/1136/2007	DT.	19.1	2.2019
EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE COPY THE GOVERNME	OF NT	THE P	ETITION SUBMITTED TO
EXHIBIT P13	A TRUE COPY 1.10.2020 OF	OF THE	THE THI	COMMUNICATION DATED RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY	OF	THE	COMMUNICATION DATED
	13/10/2020 RESPONDENT.	IS	SUED	BY THE THIRD

¶51

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶52

EXHIBIT R3(a)	REQUISITION OFFICER	GIVEN	TO LAND ACQUISITION
EXHIBIT R3(b)	TRUE COPY 15.01.2011.	OF	THE LETTER DATED
EXHIBIT R3(c)	TRUE COPY 25.03.2011.	OF	THE LETTER DATED
EXHIBIT R3(d)	TRUE COPY O THE 4TH RESP	F THE ONDENT	REPORT SUBMITTED BY TO 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R3(e)	TRUE COPY 10.06.2011.	OF	THE LETTER DATED
EXHIBIT R3(f)	TRUE COPY 30.01.2012.	OF	THE LETTER DATED
EXHIBIT R3(g)	TRUE COPY 23.02.2012.	OF	THE LETTER DATED
EXHIBIT R3(h)	TRUE COPY 19.10.2012.	OF	THE LETTER DATED
EXHIBIT R3(i)	TRUE COPY OF	THE LE	TTER DATED 04.06.20.

T.T.Sunny v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.T.Sunny 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

Edison Joy, Vs Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd.

Aswani Vs Kerala State Sports Council

Sreelakshmi Cashew Company Vs the Ombudsman for Insurance

Ance O.Reji, Vs the Divisional Manager

The Insurance Director Vs Amina Sebastian

Rejumon Varghese Vs Government of Kerala