Disposed

Austin Kadamala v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jan 2021WP(C)/553/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a PWD contractor, sought to have pending bill amounts adjusted against his Performance Guarantee as the EMLI software was non-functional. The Court directed the respondents to manually process the adjustment within three weeks and extended the execution timeline.

What did the court decide?

Direction to adjust pending bill towards Performance Guarantee manually within 3 weeks; extension of time for agreement execution by 2 weeks.

Austin Kadamala Vs State of Kerala — 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 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942 WP(C).No.553 OF 2021(T)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

AUSTIN KADAMALA, AGED 48 YEARS, P.W.D. CONTRACTOR, KADAMALA HOUSE, PALLIKKUNNU P.O, KALPETTA, WAYANAD – 673 124.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.JOMY GEORGE SRI.R.PADMARAJ SRI.M.J.BENNY SRI.DEEPAK MOHAN SMT. CHITRA N. DAS SHRI.RISHAB S. SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR [V.K.EDOM]

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.

¶11

3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD ROADS AND BRIDGES DIVISION, NORTH CIRCLE, PWD COMPLEX, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE – 673 001.

¶12

4 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SUB DIVISION, 16/XVI, VIVEKANANDANAGAR, KALPETTA, WAYANAD – 673 122.

¶13

BY ADV. SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.553 OF 2021(T)

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner, who is an A Class contractor, has been issued Ext.P1 selection notice dated 06.11.2020 for the work of 'Providing BM&BC to Panamaram LPS-NeerattadiVilambukandam road between km 2/000 to 5/600 Wayanad District'. As per the said notice, he is directed to deposit Performance Guarantee for an amount of Rs.15,68,500/-, 50% of which should be in the form of Treasury Deposit.

¶19

2. Petitioner pointed out that a sum of Rs.12,88,095/- is due to him towards the work of 'Flood 2019-20 Construction of drain at km 8/000 -8/950 RHS of Chennalode -Mundakutty Chaeriamkolly road' covered by Exts.P2 and P3 proceedings. The petitioner had as per Ext.P4 application, requested the 4^th respondent to adjust the amount covered by the aforesaid bills towards the Performance Guarantee

¶20

WP(C).No.553 OF 2021(T)

¶21

¶22

demanded in Ext.P1.

¶23

3. The 3^rd respondent as per Ext.P5 letter informed that the pending bills registered under EMLI from 01.04.2020 can be pledged towards the Performance Guarantee for executing agreement. It is stated that the petitioner was asked to submit the indemnity certificate from the EMLI application in accordance with the Government Order Ext.P6 dated 23.06.2020.

¶24

4. The petitioner submits that even though Government has issued Ext.P6 as early as on 23.06.2020, necessary modifications are not effected in the software EMLI, BDS etc so far and the said system is not operational. It is stated that this Court has in several cases directed such adjustments by manual operation.

¶25

5. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the amount available

¶26

WP(C).No.553 OF 2021(T)

¶27

¶28

to the petitioner under the bill is only a sum of Rs.12,88,095/- whereas the total amount required for Performance Guarantee is Rs.15,68,500/-.

¶29

6. At any rate, there cannot be any objection for adjustment of the said bill to the extent of Rs.12,88,095/- towards the Performance Guarantee as the petitioner can deposit the balance amount either as Treasury Deposit or otherwise in accordance with the selection notice, subject to the direction of the 4^th respondent.

¶30

As it is pointed out that the software is not working and the indemnity certificate as provided in Ext.P6 Government Order would not be available as the system is not made operational, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner in Ext.P4 application for adjusting

¶31

WP(C).No.553 OF 2021(T)

¶32

¶33

the said pending bill as against the Performance Guarantee and to process the same manually, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall thereafter be allowed to execute the agreement and to carry out the work. There shall also be a direction that time for execution of agreement shall be extended for a further period of two weeks.

¶34

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/-

¶35

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶36

¶37

WP(C).No.553 OF 2021(T)

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY	OF THE	SELEC	TION	NOTICE N	O.DC02/
	2018/9969 3RD RESPON	DATED DENT.	06.11.	2020	ISSUED	BY THE
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY RESPONDENT RS.8,04,00	OF THE SHO 7/- IS	PROFOR WING DUE TO	MA I AN THE	SSUED BY AMOUN PETITION	THE 4TH T OF ER.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY RESPONDENT RS.4,84,08	OF THE SHO 8/- IS	PROFOR WING DUE TO	MA I AN THE	SSUED BY AMOUN PETITION	THE 4TH T OF ER.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COP 21.12.2020 BEFORE THE	Y OF SUBMI 4TH RE	THE TTED SPONDE	APP BY NT.	LICATION THE PET	DATED ITIONER
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY BY THE 3RD	OF LETT RESPON	ER DAT DENT.	ED 2	3.12.2020	ISSUED
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY NO.3834/20	OF TH 20/FIN	E GOVE DATED	RNME 23.0	NT ORDER 6.2020.	GO(RT)
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY	OF THE	JUDGM	ENT	DATED 09.	11.2020
	IN WP(C) COURT.	NO.220	48/202	0 O	F THIS	HON'BLE

Austin Kadamala v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Austin Kadamala 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Proprietor Vs State of Kerala

Snehatheeram Charitable Society Vs State of Kerala

X Vs Union of India

Kanjirapuzha Planters Association Vs the District Collector

Thressia K.O Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Sunil Kumar.P.G. Vs Kotak Mahindra Private Ltd.