Disposed

Thajudeen a., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Aug 2022WP(C)/16995/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in response to a writ petition by a contractor, directed the 4th respondent to consider his representation regarding increased bitumen costs, after providing him an opportunity to be heard, to be decided within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation after affording an opportunity of hearing, within two months.

Thajudeen a., Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | 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 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 16995 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

THAJUDEEN A.,
AGED 61 YEARS
PWD CONTRACTOR, THOPPIL VEEDU, THOLIKUZHY, ADAYAMON
P.O., KILIMANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695614.
BY ADV AJITH KRISHNAN

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.

¶10

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶11

3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS, SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶12

4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS DIVISION, PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶13

5 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, (INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC WORKS), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

6 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

BY ADVS.
SRI. K.V MANOJKUMAR; SPL G.P
SMT. AMMINIKUTTY K; GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C) NO. 16995 OF 2022

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 12^th day of August, 2022

¶21

The petitioner had executed the work named “Improvements to Vattavila-Pirayinmoodu road km 0/000 to 2/480 Thirupuram-Mavilakkadavu Road km 1/000 to 3/200 and Udayankulangara-Vlathankara Road km 1/000 to 3/670 by providing 50 mm thick BM and 30 mm thick BC.”. After completing the work, petitioner submitted his bill and the same was honored. Presently, the petitioner is claiming differential cost of bitumen used during the execution of the work. According to the petitioner the cost of bitumen had increased manifold during execution of the work and the petitioner was compelled to use VG-30 bitumen instead of NRMB, as the latter product was not available. The petitioner’s bill for differential cost of bitumen having not been considered, he has preferred Ext.P7 representation before the 4th respondent.

¶22

2.Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P7 and pass a reasoned order thereon, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. During such hearing, the petitioner

¶23

WP(C) NO. 16995 OF 2022

¶24

¶25

can produce the relevant Government Orders covering the judgments, if any, rendered by this court. The decision, as directed above, shall be taken within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

V.G ARUN

JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 16995 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16995/2022

¶33

`PETITIO`	`NER EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY` `27/10/2017` `THE PETITI`	`OF THE` `ISSUE` `ONER P`	`SELECTION NOTICE DATED` `D BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO` `ETITIONER.`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY` `ISSUED BY` `PETROLEUM`	`OF THE` `THE 4T` `CORPOR`	`LETTER DATED 13/5/2019` `H RESPONDENT TO BHARATH` `ATION LTD.`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY` `9386/2018/` `THE 5TH RE`	`OF THE` `FIN. D` `SPONDE`	`GOVT. ORDER G.O.(RT)NO.` `ATED 13/11/2018 ISSUED BY` `NT`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY` `BY THE ASS` `COUNTERSIG` `ENGINEER R`	`OF THE` `ISTANT` `NED BY` `OADS S`	`LETTER DATED NIL ISSUED` `ENGINEER AND` `THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE` `UB DIVISION, NEYYATTINKARA`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY` `22/1/2020` `EXECUTIVE` `NEYYATTINK`	`OF THE` `ISSUED` `ENGINE` `ARA`	`HAND RECEIPT DATED` `BY THE ASSISTANT` `ER ROADS SUB DIVISION,`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY` `28.4.2022` `THE 1ST RE`	`OF THE` `SUBMIT` `SPONDE`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `TED BY THE PETITIONER TO` `NT`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY` `16.7.2022` `BEFORE THE`	`OF THE` `SUBMIT` `4TH R`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `TED BY THE PETITIONER,` `ESPONDENT.`

Thajudeen a., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thajudeen a., 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

Adv. a. M. Ariff Vs the Union of India

K.K.Sugathan Vs Punarjani Securities Limited

Dr.a.Ashokan Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Ashraf Vs the Director, Kerala State It Mission and Akshaya

Dr.Sreedev T.S Vs State of Kerala

Cheerans Structurals, Vs Micro and Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council