Disposed

Ojasvi'S Construction Solutions v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Sept 2021WP(C)/12292/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contractor filed a writ petition aggrieved by the inaction of the second respondent in considering representations seeking relief from contract obligations. The court directed the competent Government authority to take a decision within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to competent Government authority to take a decision on petitioner's representations with notice within one month. Hearing ordered via video conferencing.

Ojasvi'S Construction Solutions Vs the State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 15TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 12292 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

OJASVI'S CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ARUN P, S/O. P. PURUSHOTHAMAN, PARASAKTHI BUILDING, SHORANUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, 679 122.

¶8

BY ADVS. BINOY VASUDEVAN SREEJITH SREENATH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (ROADS), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶12

3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS AND BRIDGES), CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA-ERNAKULAM DIST. 683 101.

¶13

BY ADV.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR,SPL.GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 12292 OF 2021

¶16

¶17

W.P.(C) No.12292 of 2021

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Petitioner is a contractor. They have been assigned a civil work by the third respondent. In the course of execution of the work, the petitioner preferred a representation before the third respondent seeking orders to relieve them from the obligations under the contract for the various reasons mentioned in the representation. Ext.P8 is the representation preferred by the petitioner before the third respondent in this regard. Since no action was taken on Ext.P8 representation, the petitioner preferred Ext.P9 reminder to Ext.P8 representation. Since no action was taken on Ext.P9 as well, the petitioner approached this court and this court directed the third respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P8 and P9 representations, in terms of Ext.P10 judgment. It is stated by the petitioner that pursuant to Ext.P10 judgment, the third respondent considered the representations and forwarded the same for appropriate decision by the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the second respondent is not taking further action in this matter. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

¶20

2 . The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, points

¶21

WP(C) NO. 12292 OF 2021

¶22

¶23

out that the second respondent has considered the matter in detail after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and having felt that a decision in a matter like this could be taken only by the Government, forwarded the representations to the Government on 25.08.2021 for appropriate decision. It was also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that a decision would be taken in this regard by the Government expeditiously.

¶24

In the aforesaid circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the competent authority of the Government to take a decision on the representations of the petitioner with a notice to the petitioner, within one month. Ordered accordingly. The hearing ordered in terms of this judgment can be conducted through video conferencing.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 12292 OF 2021

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12292/2021

¶32

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶33

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY	OF THE PWD LICENSE OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY DATED 27.0 AND THE RE	OF THE AGREEMENT NO. 51/SECCA/2019-20 7.2019 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER SPONDENTS.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OVER THE S	OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM OF HANDING ITE TO THE CONTRACTOR DATED 03.08.2019.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY ENGINEER T	OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE EXECUTIVE O THE PETITIONER DATED 03.10.2019.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY BY THE PET	OF THE LETTER DATED 04.11.2019 SUBMITTED ITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY ASSISTANT (ROADS) IN IMMEDIATEL	OF THE LETTER DATED 12.06.2020 OF THE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FORMING THE PETITIONER TO FILL THE HOLES Y.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY THE ASSIST PETITIONER	OF THE LETTER DATED 11.09.2020 SENT BY ANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TO THE .
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED RESPONDENT	OF THE REQUEST DATED 04.10.2020 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD .
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY PETITIONER 14.01.2021	OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON .
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY W.P.C NO.	OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.02.2021 IN 1921 OF 2021.
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY 31.05.2021 PETITIONER	OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. E2-531/21 DATED SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE .

Ojasvi'S Construction Solutions v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ojasvi'S Construction Solutions v. the 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

Chicago Constructions International (P) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Joseph R.V. Vs State of Kerala

Shwetha Mohan Vs State Bank of India

George Joseph Vs the District Magistrate and District Collector

C.T. Joseph Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Geethika Sreekumar, Vs the Controller Examinations