Partly allowed

Shaji.N.R v. the Kochi Corporation

Kerala HC28 Jan 2021WP(C)/26770/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition by a civil contractor sought directions to the Kochi Corporation to process payment for completed beautification work. The Court directed the petitioner to cure specific minor defects regarding tiles and concrete work but ruled weep holes were not required. The petitioner was ordered to complete corrections within two weeks, and the respondents were directed to release 50% of th

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to cure defects in two weeks; Respondents to release 50% of dues in three weeks and balance by 31.03.2021.

Shaji.N.R Vs the Kochi Corporation — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/8TH MAGHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.26770 OF 2019(U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHAJI N.R., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. N. K. RAJAN, NANIYATTIL HOUSE, OPPOSITE TO CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI – 682 030.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN ADV. SRI. ALEX M. SCARIA APPEARS IN COURT

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KOCHI CORPORATION, PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, KERALA - 682 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, KOCHI CORPORATION, PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, KERALA - 682 011.

¶12

R1-R2 BY SRI.P.FAZIL,SC, KOCHI CORPORATION

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.26770/2019

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2021

¶18

The petitioner who is a Civil Contractor is before this Court seeking to direct the 2^nd respondent Secretary, Kochi Corporation to process Ext.P1 statement as per Ext.P2 and to make payment within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶19

The petitioner had undertaken beautification work of M.G. Road, Ernakulam. According to the petitioner, he had completed the work on time. However, the claim made by the petitioner as per Ext.P1 dated 25.12.2018, has not been honoured by the respondents so far. The representations submitted by the petitioner remain unheeded. In such circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶20

The respondents resisted the writ petition filing

¶21

counter affidavit dated 28.10.2019. In the counter affidavit,

¶22

WP(C)No.26770/2019

¶23

¶24

the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner has

¶25

not satisfactorily completed the work.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶27

As regards the completion of work by the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel raised certain

¶28

minor defects in the work, which are three in number:

¶29

(a) Defects noted in chequred precast tiles near Medical Trust Hospital.

¶30

(b) Concrete works not finished near Jackson Furniture Shop.

¶31

¶32

In response to the said alleged defects, the

¶33

petitioner would contend that the precast tiles laid on the foot path in front of the car parking of Medical Trust Hospital

¶34

were damaged due to the plying of heavy vehicles to the

¶35

¶36

WP(C)No.26770/2019

¶37

premises of the Medical Trust Hospital. The Corporation Authorities themselves had sent notice to the Medical Trust Hospital in this regard.

¶38

As regards the unfinished concrete work near Jacson Furniture Shop, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the work has already been completed as directed by the Authorities of the Corporation and the Corporation has now taken a stand that it has to be altered to make the foot path pedestrian-friendly. At the time of original construction, the petitioner was required by the officials of the Corporation to construct the foot path in such a way to prevent two wheelers from entering the foot path.

¶39

8. Respondents have a further case that sufficient

¶40

weep holes for draining water to the drainage were not provided by the petitioner. The petitioner on the other hand would contend that the petitioner had provided weep holes almost at every gap of 10 metres.

¶41

¶42

WP(C)No.26770/2019

¶43

Outstanding payable to the petitioner is about `58,11,706/-, according to the petitioner. The defects pointed out are of minor nature involving no substantial expenses.

¶44

The learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents submitted that if the petitioner make good effort to cure the defects pointed out in front of Medical Trust Hospital and effect alterations in the foot path in Jacson Furniture Shop so as to make it pedestrian-friendly, the respondents are willing to process Ext.P1 and make payment to the petitioner expeditiously. According to the respondents, the requirement of weep holes does not exist now.

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the defects now pointed out by the respondents, were not pointed out within the defect liability period and further the bills in respect of the work where the defects are now pointed out, was already settled.

¶46

¶47

¶48

As the bill amount claimed by the petitioner is substantial and as the petitioner has expressed readiness to make good the two minor defects indicated above soon, this Court deem it fit to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

¶49

(i) The petitioner shall cure the defects noted in chequred pre-cast tiles near Medical Trust Hospital and do the concrete work near Jacson Furniture Shop so as to make the foot path pedestrian friendly.

¶50

(ii) As regards weep holes, as on date, no requirement of weep holes are necessary. It is agreed by either side.

¶51

(iii) The petitioner shall complete the work within a

¶52

period of two weeks. The respondents are directed to release 50% of the amount due to the petitioner within a

¶53

period of three weeks and the balance amount on or before

¶54

31.03.2021.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

ncd

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶62

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY PETITIONER	OF .	THE BILL SUBMITTED BY THE
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY BY THE PET	OF ITI	THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED ONER DATED 19.09.2019
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY ACCEPTANCE (EXT.P3 P	O OF ROD	F THE RECEIPT ISSUED IN EXHIBIT P2. UCED ALONG WITH THE WRIT
	PETITION	IS	RENUMBERED AS EXT.P2(a) AS
	PER ORDER IN W.P.(C)	DAT 26	ED 8.10.2020 IN IA NO.4/2020 770/2019.

¶63

¶64

¶65

EXHIBIT P3(a)	A TRUE COPY PARTS SUBMI ENGINEER	OF TTED	THE M BOOK IN FOUR TO THE ASSISTANT
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY	OF T	HE RELEVANT PAGES OF
	THE AGREEMEN UNDERTAKEN BY	T BY THE	WHICH THE WORK WAS PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY DATED 14.11.2	OF 017	THE REPRESENTATION
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY 05/12/2017	OF	THE LETTER DATED
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF 07/08/2019	THE	REPRESENTATION DATED
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATIO	THE N	RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P7
EXHIBIT P9	THE ORIGINAL	OF	THE COVER IN WHICH
	EXHIBIT R1 PETITIONER	(b)	RECEIVED BY THE
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY PETITIONER DA	OF T TED	HE REPLY SENT BY THE 12/11/2019
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPIES O	F TH	E PHOTOGRAPHS

¶66

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶67

EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.MOJ3/28179/15 DATED 04.01.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF THE RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT R1(b) THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.ISO/MOE6/24121/19 DATED 09.10.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

Shaji.N.R v. the Kochi Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji.N.R v. the Kochi Corporation

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

Rejumon Varghese Vs Government of Kerala

T.M.Abdul Hameed Khan Vs Government of Kerala

Rejumon Varghese Vs Kerala Land Development Corporation Limited

Vinod Kumar P Vs State of Kerala

Gopinathan Palakkal Vs Union of India

P.Rajan Vs State of Kerala