Partly allowed

A.Kishore v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2022WP(C)/21631/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, a government contractor sought the release of performance security retained by the State. The Court directed the Project Director to consider the contractor's representation within one month, ensuring any retained security is commensurate with the value of work actually executed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and take a decision within one month regarding the release of performance security limitable to the value of work executed.

A.Kishore 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

TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 21631 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

1 A.KISHORE AGED 50 YEARS (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR), S/O. ARJUNAN, ANJALI, KANNANCODU, VETTIKAVALA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN - 691 538.

¶8

BY ADV. ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶11

2 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PMU-KRFB, GROUND FLOOR,B.S.N.L., DOOR SANCHAR BHAVAN,P.M.G. JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695 033.

¶12

3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (BRIDGES), PWD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 003.

¶13

4 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD BRIDGES DIVISION, SOUTH CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA. PIN - 688 511.

¶14

5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BRIDGES DIVISION, PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN - 695003.

¶15

6 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BRIDGES SUB DIVISION, KOLLAM. PIN - 691 001.

¶16

BY ADVS. AMMINIKUTTY K, GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.V.MANOJKUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL FOR KRFB

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 21631 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 05^th day of July, 2022

¶22

The petitioner was awarded the work of construction of the Arakkadavu Bridge across Nedumankavu River in Kottarakkara constituency. Dispute arose when the petitioner raised a demand for revision of rates and revised estimate due to the delayed progress in the work. This ultimately resulted in the contract agreement being foreclosed as per Ext.P10, exempting the petitioner from risk and cost. Thereafter, Ext.P11 was issued directing to release the additional performance guarantee of the subject work, worth Rs.41,65,700/- and retaining the balance portion of the bill. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P12 representation, requesting to release the performance security portion also, pointing out that, out of the contract amount of Rs.8,44,60,802.06, the petitioner has executed work for Rs.1,60,61,201.55 and if at all performance security is to be retained, that has to be commensurate with the above amount.

¶23

WP(C) NO. 21631 OF 2022

¶24

¶25

Heard, learned Counsel for the petitioner and

¶26

the learned Government Pleader.

¶27

Having heard the learned Counsel on either side, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition as under;

¶28

The 2^nd respondent shall consider Ext.P12 representation and to take an appropriate decision thereon within one month. While effecting such consideration, the petitioner’s contention that, if at all

¶29

the performance security is to be retained, that should be limited to the value of the work executed and the balance released, should be taken into account.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

NB/5-7

WP(C) NO. 21631 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21631/2022

¶37

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE T-10/2017-18 DATE RESPONDENT.	TENDER NOTIFICATION NO. PMU-KRFB/ D 08.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE KRFB/11B/KLM/2017 2ND RESPONDENT.	LETTER NO. 66/PWD008-02/PD/PMU- DATED 08.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF COM DATED 19.11.2018 (DESIGN), PWD, RESPONDENT.	MUNICATION BD/74/2013/DESIGN/ HW ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE 3RD
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 28.11.2018 THE 2ND RESPONDEN	COMMUNICATION NO. D2(B) 6593/2016 ENDORSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO T.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 28.11.2018 THE 5TH RESPONDEN	COMMUNICATION NO. DB(B9) 20-2012 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO T.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE THE PETITIONER TO	LETTER DATED 16.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE 10.02.2020 ISSUED PETITIONER.	LETTER NO. D2 - 6593/ 2016 DATED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF TH DATED 04.10.2021 OFFICER, KIFB TO	E LETTER NO. PWD008-02/MISC-01 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE PETITIONER	LETTER DATED 27.10.2021 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT,
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY 00802/11B/KLM/201 2ND RESPONDENT.	OF THE ORDER NO.66/PWD 7 DATED 17.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE KRFB/11B/KLM/2017 2ND RESPONDENT T ROADS DIVISION KO	LETTER NO.66/PWD 008-02/PD/PMU- DATED 29.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD LLAM.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF SUBMITTED BY THE	THE PETITION DATED 25.02.2022 PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 14.06.2022 OF KERALA. NIL	JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 4386/2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT

¶38

TRUE COPY

¶39

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.Kishore v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Kishore 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

Mahesh G Vs the Union of India

K.I.Paulose Vs Kerala Water Authority

Sathyanandan M.G., Vs the Project Director

C.Narayanan Namboothiri Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Froid Periara Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

A.K. Baburaj Vs the Bar Council of Kerala