Disposed

C.K.Mammen v. the Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC21 Jan 2021WP(C)/1608/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought foreclosure of a construction agreement and refund of deposited amounts due to delay caused by respondent's inaction in granting road-cutting permission. Court directed first respondent to consider petitioner's representation and pass orders after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direct first respondent to consider petitioner's representation (Ext.P3) and pass orders within one month after giving opportunity of hearing.

C.K.Mammen Vs the Kerala Water Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942 WP(C).No.1608 OF 2021(A)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

C.K.MAMMEN, AGED 65 YEARS S/O KUNJUKUTTY, KUZHIVILAKALEECKAL HOUSE, KOMALLOOR MURI, CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.S.INDU

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶10

2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER P H CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA-688001.

¶11

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P H DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA-688001.

¶12

4 THE PROJECT MANAGER, URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT SCHEME FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM TOWNS (UID SSMT) PROJECT DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA-690101.

¶13

5 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690101. SHRI MILLU DANDAPANI, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.1608 OF 2021(A)

¶16

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

Petitioner, who was awarded the work of State Plan (2018-2019)-RWSS to Nooranad-replacing of old damaged AC pipeline from Edappan towards Para Junction with 160 mm (6kg/c,2) PVC Pipeline, has filed this writ petition stating that the work could not be completed because of the inaction of the respondents to get permission for road cutting. It is

¶19

stated that even after making all arrangements petitioner could not complete the work and the contract period expired in December 2019. Stating that the respondents have not taken any steps for renewing the contract the petitioner has approached the first respondent requesting for foreclosure of the agreement and for refund of security deposit, performance guarantee and also the amounts spend by him towards the work already executed and for

¶20

WP(C).No.1608 OF 2021(A)

¶21

¶22

purchase of materials.

¶23

Shri Millu Dandapani, learned Standing

¶24

Counsel opposes the contention of the petitioner that the work could not be executed on account of the inaction of the respondents.

¶25

However petitioner has approached the first respondent with Ext.P3 representation pointing out his grievances as well as the demand. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3

¶26

representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶27

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE

¶28

¶29

WP(C).No.1608 OF 2021(A)

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶33

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 01.03.2019 IN RESPECT OF THE WORK UNDERTAKEN BY THE PETITIONER.

¶34

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 01.03.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 01.12.2020 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶35

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE DESPATCH OF EXT.P3.

C.K.Mammen v. the Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K.Mammen v. the Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jijo Mathew@Gijo Mathew Vs the Principal Secretary to Govt

N.Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Binu K.C. Vs State of Kerala

Malabar Plus Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

V.Ummer Haji Vs State of Kerala

Paily Abraham Vs Kerala Water Authority