Disposed

Paily Abraham v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC21 Jan 2021WP(C)/23599/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the retention of security deposit and other amounts by the Kerala Water Authority despite work completion. The court directed the Managing Director to consider the claim for release on execution of a simple bond within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Managing Director to consider the claim for release of retained amounts on execution of a simple bond within three weeks.

Paily Abraham Vs 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

¶5

WP(C).No.23599 OF 2020(Y)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PAILY ABRAHAM, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.PAILY, ERUMBAIL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O., VALAKOM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM - 682 316.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL GEORGE SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SHRI.DAJISH JOHN SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN P.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶11

2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 673.

¶12

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KATTAPPANA - 685 508.

¶13

4 THE FINANCE MANAGER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶14

R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC

¶15

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

¶16

WP(C).No.23599 OF 2020(Y)

¶17

-2-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 21st day of January 2021

¶20

The petitioner has completed the works

¶21

awarded to him by the Kerala Water Authority

¶22

after executing Ext.P1 agreement on 22.02.2018.

¶23

After completion of the work, the second

¶24

respondent issued a Work Completion/

¶25

Commissioning Certificate. It is stated that the work has completed on 12.04.2019. It is

¶26

also stated that even after the guarantee period expired on 12.11.2020 on completion of 18 months the respondents are holding security deposit, retention amount, maintenance guarantee amount and trial run expenses.

¶27

The learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority submits that even though the work has been completed, the project has not

¶28

been commissioned. According to the petitioner,

¶29

the delay in commissioning is not on account of

¶30

any fault on the part of him. The learned

¶31

WP(C).No.23599 OF 2020(Y)

¶32

-3-

¶33

standing counsel further points out that the amount retained towards the trial run

¶34

expenses/maintenance guarantee can be refunded

¶35

only after the commissioning as well as after the expiry of maintenance period in tune with the provisions contained in the agreement and that cannot be disbursed to the petitioner at this stage.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, this Court has in various judgments directed release of the amount when commissioning was delayed, pointing out that the delay in commissioning was never on account of

¶37

the default on the part of the contractors. Relying on judgment, dated 9.10.2015, in W.P.(C) No.30040 of 2015, produced as Ext.P3, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to disburse the amounts due to petitioner on execution of a simple bond. The judgment dated 27.06.2019 in W.P.(C) No.11327 of 2019 is also relied on.

¶38

WP(C).No.23599 OF 2020(Y)

¶39

-4-

¶40

In these circumstances, there shall be a direction to the 1^st respondent - the Managing Director to consider the claim of the petitioner for release of the amount due to him, and to pass orders on the same taking note of the judgments of this Court directing payment in such circumstances on execution of a simple bond. Orders shall be passed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶41

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶42

Sd/P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶43

akv

¶44

WP(C).No.23599 OF 2020(Y)

¶45

-5-

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 22/02/2018 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF WORK COMPLETION/COMMISSIONING CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 9.10.2015 IN WP(C)NO.30040/15. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 27.06.2019 IN WP(C)NO.11327/2019.

¶49

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

¶50

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Paily Abraham v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paily Abraham v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

C.K.Mammen Vs the Kerala Water Authority