Dismissed

Pious Antony v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Dec 2021WP(C)/28352/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition by relying on a common judgment (W.P.(C) No.22964 of 2021) which declared a new Government Order not applicable to concluded contracts executed between 01.11.2018 and 30.04.2021. The petitioner was directed to approach the authority for payment release within two months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with direction to the authority to release the amounts due to the petitioner within two months.

Pious Antony Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN FRIDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶4

WP(C) NO. 28352 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

PIOUS ANTONY, AGED 66 YEARS S/O.ANTONY, MANAGING PARTNER, PVJ CONSTRUCTIONS, MANNANAL HOUSE, MATTAKKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 564

¶7

BY ADVS. GEORGE MATHEW PRAVEEN S. ELSA DENNY PINDIS M.D.SASIKUMARAN SUNIL KUMAR A.G DIPU JAMES MATHEW K.T. GEORGE K.V. STEPHY K REGI

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶10

2 THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶11

3 THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT (INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC WORKS-B) REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶12

4 THE CHIEF ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS AND BRIDGES), THYCADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014

¶13

5 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA 683 101

¶14

WP(C) NO. 28352 OF 2021 ..2..

¶15

6 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS DIVISION, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 603

¶16

7 THE SENIOR FINANCE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT P.W.D. (ROADS AND BRIDGES), THYCADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014

¶17

BY SR.GP SMT. VINIEETHA B.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 28352 OF 2021 ..3..

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The writ petition is filed challenging G.O(Rt) No.3815/2021/Fin. dated 30.04.2021 of the Government of Kerala (Ext.P6) and Ext.P5 order of the 6^th respondent rejecting the representation of the petitioner against recovery towards differential rates in cost of bitumen based on Ext.P6 Government Order.

¶22

When the writ petition came up for admission today, both sides submitted that the point raised in the writ petition is covered by common judgment dated 11.11.2021 in W.P.(C) No.22964 of 2021 and connected cases. The relevant portionof the judgments are extracted below:

¶23

xxx

¶24

“24. The Ext.P7 thus imposes a new condition in all the ongoing works as on 30.04.2021. Further, the said new condition is made applicable to all works for which agreements are executed after 01.11.2018.

¶25

WP(C) NO. 28352 OF 2021 ..4..

¶26

Ext.P7 is legally infirm for two reasons. Firstly, by Ext.P7, a new onerous condition is imposed on all ongoing works unilaterally, which is impermissible in law. It is true that as per Clause 5.2 of the Standard Bidding Document, a contractor is bound by all Government Orders prevailing. But the said Clause cannot take in Government Orders which were not prevailing at the time of the execution of agreement.

¶27

Secondly, there may be contracts executed after 01.11.2018 and works completed before issuance of Ext.P7 on 30.04.2021. Subsequently issued Government Orders cannot alter the rights and liabilities of concluded commercial contracts. For both the afore reasons, Ext.P7 order cannot be made applicable to all agreements executed after 01.11.2018 and before 30.04.2021. In the circumstances, it is declared that Ext. P7 Government Order dated 30.04.2021 will not apply to such contract works undertaken by the petitioners prior to 30.04.2021 which were not ongoing contract works as on 01.11.2018. All consequence of such declaration will follow. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. However, it is made clear that Ext. P7 Government Order will apply to all contract works including if any undertaken by

¶28

WP(C) NO. 28352 OF 2021 ..5..

¶29

the petitioners, the work of which were ongoing as on 01.11.2018.”

¶30

Ext.P2 agreemnt is dated 04.11.2019. This writ

¶31

petition is therefore covered by the above common judgment.

¶32

The petitioner is free to approach the authority concerned to release the amounts due to him in accordance with this judgment. The amounts due to the petitioner shall be disbursed at the earliest at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶33

this judgment.

¶34

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶35

Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶36

SB/10/12/2021

¶37

WP(C) NO. 28352 OF 2021 ..6..

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28352/2021

¶39

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶40

Exhibit	P1 TRUE COPY 11.10.2019	OF LETTER NO.DIN/2019/4301 DTD. ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit	P2 TRUE COPY 4.11.2019 RESPONDENT	OF RELEVANT PAGES OF AGREEMENT DTD. BETWEEN PETITIONER AND 5TH
Exhibit	P3 TRUE COPY 30.7.2021 PETITIONER	OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DTD. ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO
Exhibit	P4 TRUE COPY FROM FINAL	OF RELEVANT PAGES OF CLOSING SHEET BILL DATED. NIL.
Exhibit	P5 TRUE COPY 28.10.2021 PETITIONER	OF LETTER NO.D3-4301/2019 DTD. ISSUED BY 6TH RESPONDENT TO
Exhibit	P6 TRUE COPY 30.4.2021	OF G.O.(RT) NO.3815/2021/FIN. DTD. ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit	P7 TRUE COPY 13.11.2018	OF G.O.(RT) NO.9386/2018/FIN. DTD. ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit	P8 TRUE COPY 17.4.2020	OF G.O.(RT) NO.2816/2020/FIN. DTD. ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit	P9 TRUE COPY 25.9.2020	OF G.O.(RT) NO.5502/2020/FIN. DTD. OF 3RD RESPONDENT

Pious Antony v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pious Antony v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Jayachandran Vs State of Kerala

K.N.Krishnankutty and Anr. Vs Assistant Engineer,Pwd(Roads) Section

M/S Jain Housing and Construction Ltd. Vs Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Pourvazhy Mayyathumkara Shafi Vs District Collector

C. Thulaseedharan Vs State of Kerala

Equity Intelligence India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax