Disposed

Rajesh Mathew and Co. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jun 2022WP(C)/13827/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A works contractor filed a writ petition seeking direction to consider a representation for foreclosure of executed work due to material cost rise. The High Court disposed of the writ, directing the third respondent to consider the request for foreclosure alone.

What did the court decide?

Directed third respondent to consider Ext.P14 confined to the request for foreclosure alone and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Rajesh Mathew and Co. Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 13827 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

RAJESH MATHEW AND CO.
CHERUMATTATHIL PLAZA, ARAKKUZHA ROAD JUNCTION,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER, PIN - 686661
BY ADVS.
P.SHANES METHAR
N.KRISHNA PRASAD

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695001

¶9

2 KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRIBALA BUILDINGS, T.C. 11/339, 5TH FLOOR, KESTON ROAD, NANDANCODE, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN - 695003

¶10

3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, T.C. 11/339, 5TH FLOOR, KESTON ROAD, NANDANCODE, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN – 695003

¶11

4KERALA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND BOARD (KIIFB)
2ND FLOOR, FELICITY SQUARE, STATUE JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER., PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
K.V.MANOJ KUMAR
S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, SC, KIIFB
SHRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR, SC, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

GP AMMINIKUTTY K.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 13827 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT Dated this the 01^st day of June, 2022

¶18

The petitioner, a works contractor, was awarded with

¶19

the work of improvement to Manjinikkara – Elavummthitta, Kidangannoor – Mulakkuzha Road. As per the agreement the work had to be completed within 12 months. According to the petitioner, inspite of all efforts, he was able to complete 90% of the work awarded. In the meanwhile, the cost involved in execution of the work went up substantially and it is now impossible to carry out the balance portion of the tendered work. The petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P4 representation seeking the following request.

¶20

Sanction the revised estimate urgently and finalize our payment of works executed so far

¶21

Pay us the eligible GST as per the Government Circular No.90/2017/Fin dated 14.12.2017.

¶22

WP(C) NO. 13827 OF 2022

¶23

3

¶24

The execution of balance surfacing works at this stage at the agreed rate of 2019 is not possible due to the increase in the cost of materials and labour as the delay is not due to any of our fault, but due to non shifting of KSEB utilities and approval of revised estimate.

¶25

The limited relief now sought, is the expeditious consideration of Ext.P14 representation. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that an omnibus direction to consider Ext.P14 may lead to certain legal issues as far as the respondents are concerned. Hence, the representations can be considered, confined to the prayer for foreclosure alone.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioner clarified that as of now, the petitioner is satisfied with a direction to consider the request for foreclosure.

¶27

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the third respondent to consider Ext.P14 confined to the request for foreclosure alone and to pass appropriate

¶28

WP(C) NO. 13827 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

orders thereon within four weeks of receipt of a copy of

¶31

this judgment.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

V.G.ARUN
JUDGE

¶34

RK

¶35

WP(C) NO. 13827 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13827/2022

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER` `-PQ-TENDER NO.PMU-KRFB/T-15/2017-18` `DATED 22.11.2017 OF 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE` `NO.` `40/PWD004-50/PD/PMU-KRFB/137R/PTA/2017` `CATED 07.01.2019 ISSUED BY 3RD` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT NO. 77/PWD004-` `50/PD/PMU-KRFB/2018-19 DATED 8.02.2019`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. D1-2016/4536` `DATED 31.10.2019`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.` `GEN-125/2018/PMU - KRFB DATED` `24.05.2019 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 40/PWD004 -` `50/PD/PMU - KRFB/137R/PTA/2017 DATED` `17.09.2019 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.` `RMC/KIIFB(I)/2019/12 DATED 21.09.2019` `OF THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.` `RMC/KIIFB(I)/2019/16 DATED 9.11.2019 OF` `THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY` `PETITIONER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT` `EXTENDING TIME OF COMPLETION`
`Exhibit11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE OBSERVATION MEMO NO.4` `DATED 13.11.2020 OF THE TECHNICAL TEAM` `OF 4TH RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT DATED 03.08.2021`
`Exhibit P13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED ESTIMATE DATED` `22.01.2022`
`Exhibit P14`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `15.01.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.(LETTER NO.`

¶40

WP(C) NO. 13827 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

RMC/KIIFB(I)/2019/55)

Rajesh Mathew and Co. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Mathew and Co. 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

Special Tahsildar (La) Vs Sreekumarn Nair

B. Praveen Vs State of Kerala

Muthoot Fincorp Limited Vs State of Kerala

Divine Gas Enterprises Vs Union of India

Xxx Vs State of Kerala

Marysadan Edathala International (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala