Thoppil Contractors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala Road Fund Board Project Management Unit

Kerala HC3 Jun 2022WP(C)/14968/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that granting the petitioner's plea for time extension would effectively amount to modifying a prior judgment without reviewing it, and accordingly, the writ petition was closed with the right to seek remedy reviewed. The court directed the petitioner to seek review or modification of the prior judgment rather than filing a fresh writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner directed to seek review or modification of prior judgment.

Thoppil Contractors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — 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

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 14968 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

THOPPIL CONTRACTORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
THOLIKUZHY, ADYAMON.P.O,
KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695614, REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NIZAMUDEEN.A., PIN - 2022
BY ADV AJITH KRISHNAN

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT
SREEBALA BUILDING, TC.11/339, 5TH FLOOR, KESTON
ROAD,NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695003.REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR.

¶10

2THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT,
SREEBALA BUILDING,
TC.11/339, 5TH FLOOR, KESTON ROAD, NANTHANCODE,
KOWDIAR.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.

¶11

3 KERALA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND BOARD (KIIFB) 2ND FLOOR, FELICITY SQUARE, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶12

4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695541. BY ADV K.V.MANOJ KUMAR

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SC FOR KIIFB S. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR; SC FOR KSEB
K.S.ANIL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 14968 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2022

¶20

The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P9 notice inviting tender for the work of carrying out improvements to the Vamanapuram – Chittar road. The alleged delay on the petitioner’s part has resulted in the work being re-tendered under Ext.P9. The petitioners had approached this Court earlier and by Ext.P5 judgment the time for executing the contract was extended by 45 days. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued in extenso as to the reasons for not completing the work within the time granted under Ext.P5 judgment. Learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent submitted that the reasons are frivolous and the attempt through this writ petition is to get the time granted under Ext.P5 extended. Having carefully perused Ext.P5 judgment, I find that the prayer sought in this writ petition cannot be granted since, that would, in effect, amount to modification or review of Ext.P5 judgment. The petitioner should therefore seek review or modification of the judgment, rather than filing a

¶21

WP(C) NO. 14968 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

fresh writ petition.

¶24

The writ petition is hence closed, reserving the petitioners

¶25

right to seek appropriate remedy.

¶26

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶27

¶28

WP(C) NO. 14968 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14968/2022

¶31

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT DATED`	`ACCEPTANCE ISSUED BY THE 1ST` `23.12.2017`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `EXECUTIVE ENGINEE` `ROAD SUB DIVISION`	`LETTER OF THE ASSISTANT` `R TO EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD` `DATED 10.08.2021.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `(SOUTH) OF PROJEC` `THE 1ST RESPONDEN`	`LETTER OF TEAM LEADER` `T MANAGEMENT UNIT KRFB TO` `T DATED 24.01.2022`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `18.02.2022 ISSUED`	`TERMINATION ORDER DATED` `BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `W.P.(C)NO.5837/20`	`JUDGMENT DATED 4/4/2022 IN` `22 AND W.P.(C)NO.6846/2022`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `PETITIONER TO THE` `THE MINUTES OF JO` `PHOTOGRAPH.`	`DATED 21/4/2022 SENT BY THE` `1ST RESPONDENT PRODUCING` `INT INSPECTION AND`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `INSTRUCTIONS AS P` `ISSUED BY THE 3RD`	`RELEVANT PAGES OF THE` `ER LETTER DATED 25/08/2020` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `COMMENCEMENT OF T`	`PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE` `HE WORK BY PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NOTICE DATED 19/4`	`RELEVANT PAGES OF THE TENDER` `/2022`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `22/4/2022 SUBMITT` `1ST RESPONDENT.`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `ED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE`

Thoppil Contractors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala Road Fund Board Project Management Unit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thoppil Contractors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala Road Fund Board Project Management Unit

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

A. v. Rasiya Vs Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (Supplyco)

Suresh Kumar K Vs State of Kerala

Sumitha.a.S. Vs the State of Kerala

Abhirami.G. Vs the District Collector

Jitesh P., Vs the District Magistrate

Rajesh S. Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board