Disposed

Diya Constructions v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC7 Jan 2021WP(C)/26796/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition seeking relief from an executed agreement. Noting that the respondent had obtained the required road cutting permit, the court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation after an opportunity of hearing within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation after affording an opportunity of hearing within two weeks.

Diya Constructions 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 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942 WP(C).No.26796 OF 2020(Y)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

DIYA CONSTRUCTIONS 33/3341A, KAKKANATT, THOTTILPEEDIKA, CHEVARAMBALAM P. O., KOZHIKODE - 673017, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER JOSEPH K. D., AGED 65 YERS, S/O. DEVASIA.

¶7

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

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

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

¶10

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WS DIVISION, KANNUR - 670012.

¶11

BY SHRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No.26796 OF 2020(Y)

¶14

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

Petitioner, who was awarded the work of State

¶17

Plan 2019-20-Optimization of production and transmission-Pipe line extension from Mowenchery to Chakkarakkal Town and branch road Munderi and Chembilode Panchayaths had executed Ext.P1 agreement, has approached the second respondent with Ext.P2 representation requesting to relieve him from the agreement on the ground that the respondents could not get the permission for cutting the road though petitioner had procured all materials for starting the work and that the agreement period is already over.

¶18

Learned Standing Counsel on instructions submitted that road cutting permit has since been obtained. However since the petitioner has approached the second respondent with Ext.P2 representation, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second

¶19

WP(C).No.26796 OF 2020(Y)

¶20

¶21

respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 representation, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶22

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE

¶23

¶24

WP(C).No.26796 OF 2020(Y)

¶25

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 11.11.2019 SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.11.2020 GIVEN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT LETTER.

Diya Constructions v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Diya Constructions 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anas A.P. Vs the District Level Authorization Committee

Shallet Saiza Vs the District Level Authorization Committee

Rsp Constructions, Vs Kerala State Mineral Development Corporation Limited (Kemdel)

Hydro Electrical System Vs Kerala Water Authority

Jayakumar Vs the Managing Director

Ashraf v.P., Vs State of Kerala