Allowed

Binu Mathew v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC1 Oct 2021WP(C)/3252/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed respondent authorities to remit approved bill amounts to a government contractor within four to three months despite alleged fund paucity, noting the work was completed to satisfaction.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 to 4 to disburse the amount covered by Ext.P1 work within four months and Respondents 1 to 5 to disburse the amount covered by Ext.P2 work within three months.

Binu Mathew Vs Kerala Water Authority — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 3252 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

BINU MATHEW KOTTAVIRUTHIL HOUSE, ANAPRAMPAL NORTH P.O., THALAVADY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADVS. JOMY GEORGE R.PADMARAJ BENNY M.J. DEEPAK MOHAN CHITRA N. DAS

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶10

2 THE FINANCE MANAGER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024,

¶11

3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H. CIRCLE, KALMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD 678001.

¶12

4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY PROJECT DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KALMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD 678 001.

¶13

5 ADDL.R5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, KERALA 678 013

¶14

6 ADDL.R6 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,

¶15

WP(C) NO.3252/2021

¶16

¶17

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001 (ADDL.R5 AND 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.10.2021 IN I.A.NO.1/2021) BY ADV SHRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶18

ADV.SMT.RASHMI K.M., SR.GP

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO.3252/2021

¶21

¶22

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶23

W.P.(C)No.3252 of 2021

¶24

Dated this the 01^st day of October 2021

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioner is a Government contractor undertaking different kinds of work of various Government departments. The petitioner was entrusted with the works of Kerala Water Authority and he entered into agreements for executing certain works. Ext.P1 is one of such agreement. Ext.P2 relates to another work and it is a communication from the Executive

¶27

Engineer of the Water Authority to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner completed the work. The petitioner submitted CC 3^rd and part bill of Ext.P1 work and CC 1^st and

¶28

part bill of Ext.P2 work and the same is admittedly approved by the officials of Water Authority. According to the petitioner, an

¶29

WP(C) NO.3252/2021

¶30

¶31

amount of Rs.2,33,64,152/- is due to the petitioner as CC 3^rd and part bill of Ext.P1 work and an amount of Rs.48,75,395/- is due to the petitioner as CC 1^st and part bill of Ext.P2 work. Exts.P3 and P4 are the vouchers issued by

¶32

the 4^th respondent. As per letters dated 07.10.2020 and 30.11.2020, the 4^th respondent requested the 2^nd respondent to release the fund

¶33

for paying the bill amount of the petitioner. Exts.P5 and P6 are the letters sent by the 4^th respondent to the 2^nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that, even though the petitioner completed the work to the full satisfaction of the respondents without any complaint, even after repeated requests, the respondents have not taken any steps to pay the bill due to the petitioner. Hence this writ petition is filed.

¶34

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Government

¶35

WP(C) NO.3252/2021

¶36

¶37

Pleader for additional respondents 5 and 6.

¶38

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is waiting for getting the admitted amount for the work he has done and the respondents are not disbursing the amount.

¶39

4. The learned Standing counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that there is paucity of fund to release the amount. The respondents are now paying the pending bills from 2019. The learned Standing counsel submitted that as far as the work mentioned in Ext.P2 is concerned, the fund is to be released from the Government. The learned Standing counsel submitted that the Water Authority will

¶40

do the needful to disburse the amount as expeditiously as possible.

¶41

5. It is an admitted fact that the

¶42

petitioner completed the work. There is no dispute that the work is completed and the

¶43

¶44

WP(C) NO.3252/2021

¶45

amount is due to the petitioner. The only reason for not disbursing the amount is that there is paucity of fund. After allotting a work to a contractor and thereafter when he completed the work to the satisfaction of the respondents, the

¶46

respondents are entitled to pay the remuneration. The contractor can not wait indefinitely to get his admitted remuneration.

¶47

It is true that there is some force in the argument of the Standing counsel that due to paucity of fund the amount is not paid. But the petitioner can not wait indefinitely.

¶48

Therefore, there can be a time limit in the facts and circumstances of this case to pay the admitted amount due to the petitioner. Since the fund to be disbursed for the work involved in Ext.P2 is the Government, there can be a direction to the Government also.

¶49

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶50

i) Respondents 1 to 4 will disburse the

¶51

WP(C) NO.3252/2021

¶52

¶53

amount covered by Exts.P1 work within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶54

ii) Respondents 1 to 5 will take every steps to disburse the amount covered for the work mentioned in Ext.P2 as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

WP(C) NO.3252/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3252/2021

¶61

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶62

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO. 01/1920/SE/PHC/PKD DATED 24.04.2019 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE NO. D2-LAC-ADS PKD & PIRAYIR/19-20 DATED 22.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR THE CC 3RD AND PART BILL OF EXHIBIT P-1 WORK. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR THE CC 1ST AND PART BILL OF EXHIBIT P-2 WORK. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.10.2020 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.11.2020 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶63

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶64

//TRUE COPY//

¶65

PA TO JUDGE

Binu Mathew v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binu Mathew 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

Joseph T.X. Vs the Secretary

Sunil N.S Vs State of Kerala

Samsudheen Varikkapulakkal Vs the Union of India

Suresh Mathew Vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

Haneefa Vs Kerala State Women'S Development Corpo

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kseb Vs Consumer Vigilance Centre, Sreekovil