Dismissed

Libin K Issac v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Sept 2022WP(C)/22190/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation of his boat service contract award due to alleged delayed intimation of payment deadline extension. Court found petitioner requested extension to 08.06.2022 but failed to pay. Declined to direct acceptance of belated payment citing lack of sympathy basis.

What did the court decide?

Petition for cancellation of the order disposing the contract in the respondent's favour is dismissed.

Libin K Issac Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

aIN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 11TH BHADRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 22190 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

LIBIN K ISSAC AGED 38 YEARS SON OF SRI. ISSAC KARADIKKUZHIYIL HOUSE KUZHIMATTOM P.O. KOTTAYAM, KERALA PIN – 686533

¶7

BY ADVS. LUKE J CHIRAYIL M.G.SREEJITH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001

¶10

2 DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM SOUTH KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 686013

¶11

3 THE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM SOUTH KERALA, PIN - 686013

¶12

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686060

¶13

5 THE POSTMASTER KUZHIMATTOM S.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686533

¶14

BY ADV. P.S.APPU., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO.22190 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 02^nd day of September, 2022

¶20

The petitioner was awarded the contract for operating the boat service of the 2^nd respondent named ‘Shikhara Boat Kingfisher”. The confirmation of bid in the petitioner’s favour was communicated under Ext.P3 letter dated 23.05.2022. According to the petitioner, on receipt of Ext.P3, he approached the 2^nd respondent for the purpose of executing the agreement, but was informed that the 2^nd respondent was on leave and further proceedings based on the letter of confirmation can be pursued only on 30.05.2022. Thereafter, by Ext.P4 representation dated 30.05.2022, petitioner informed the 4^th respondent about the financial crisis being faced by him and sought permission to remit the bid amount in six equal instalments. Again the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation on 04.06.2022,

¶21

¶22

WP(C) NO.22190 OF 2022

¶23

requesting for extension of time on medical grounds. Acceding to the request, time for payment of the bid amount was extended up to 08.06.2022, but intimation in that regard was communicated only by Ext.P15 letter dated 07.06.2022. The petitioner having failed to remit the amount within the extended time limit, Ext.P17 was issued, cancelling the award of contract in the petitioner’s favour. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed.

¶24

Learned Counsel for the petitioner vociferously contended that the 2^nd respondent committed a gross illegality in requiring the petitioner to remit the balance amount on 08.06.2022, while the communication in that regard dated 07.06.2022 was received by the petitioner only on 10.06.2022. As such, the petitioner was denied the opportunity of remitting the amount within the extended period.

¶25

The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the contentions and further stating that the petitioner failed to appear on the original

¶26

WP(C) NO.22190 OF 2022

¶27

¶28

date fixed for payment and execution of the

¶29

agreement. On that day the petitioner’s wife came to the office and submitted Ext.P4 representation stating that the petitioner is unable to remit the bid amount in lump sum due to the financial crisis and may be permitted to pay the amount in six instalments. Even though there is no provision for extending the time limit, the District Collector permitted him to remit the amount on or before 04.06.2022 as per by Ext.R2(a) letter dated 01.06.2022. In spite of such extension, the petitioner failed to pay the amount and instead submitted Ext.R2(b) representation, seeking extension of the time limit till 08.06.2022. Relenting to the petitioner’s request, the time was extended up to 08.06.2022.

¶30

Learned Government Pleader submitted that

¶31

the petitioner himself having made a request for extension of time upto 08.06.2022, was fully conscious of the fact that if at all any extension is granted that will be only up to 08.06.2022. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the extension upto

¶32

¶33

WP(C) NO.22190 OF 2022

¶34

08.06.2022 was not intimated to him on time.

¶35

I find merit in the contentions put forth on

¶36

behalf of the 2^nd respondent. Indisputably, the

¶37

petitioner was bound to pay the lease amount on 30.05.2022. At the petitioner’s request the time was extended upto 04.06.2022 and again upto 08.06.2022. Ext.R2(b) letter reveals that the petitioner’s specific request was to extend the time upto 08.06.2022. In such circumstances the petitioner is estopped from contending that the extension upto 08.06.2022 was intimated to him on a later date and thereby he was disabled from remitting the amount within time.

¶38

Learned Counsel for the petitioner produced the photocopy of Demand Draft taken by the petitioner for an amount of Rs.2,06,272/- which, according to the petitioner covers the bid amount. It is submitted that a lenient view may be taken and the 2^nd respondent directed to accept the Demand Draft and allow the petitioner to execute the agreement.

¶39

¶40

WP(C) NO.22190 OF 2022

¶41

As discussed earlier, under the terms of the tender notification, the petitioner was bound to remit the bid amount on or before 30.05.2022. Sufficient leniency was shown by the 2^nd respondent by extending the time, initially upto 04.06.2022 and thereafter, upto 08.06.2022. Despite such extensions, the petitioner failed to remit the amount. In such circumstances, it will be inappropriate for this Court to direct the 2^nd respondent to accept the offer now made by the petitioner. Misplaced sympathy cannot be the sole basis for exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶42

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

NB/2-9

WP(C) NO.22190 OF 2022

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22190/2022

¶50

PETITIONER’S EXHI EXHIBIT P1	BITS THE TRUE COPY OF THE UN-DATED AND UN-TITLED REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN REGARD TO THE TENDER OF "SHIKHARA BOAT KINGFISHER"
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 04.05.2022 HAVING NUMBER 8316 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.05.2022 HAVING NUMBER 98C/DTPC/KTM/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.05.2022 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.06.2022 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE HAEMATOLOGY LAB REPORT DATED 08.06.2022 HAVING OP/IP NUMBER 156503 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL HOSPITAL KOTTAYAM TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 29.05.2022 HAVING OP NO. 103869 ISSUED BY PARET MAR IVANIOS HOSPITAL KOTTAYAM TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P8	THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE DATED 29.05.2022 HAVING BILL NUMBER GP00313298 ISSUED BY PARET MAR IVANIOS HOSPITAL KOTTAYAM TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P9	THE TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR. LANORA SUSAN DAVID OF PARET MAR IVANIOS HOSPITAL KOTTAYAM IN REGARD TO THE PETITIONER HAVING REGISTRATION NUMBER 66329
EXHIBIT P10	THE TRUE COPY OF THE OUTPATIENT RECORD DATED 01.06.2022 HAVING OP NUMBER-OP 146991/22 ISSUED BY GENERAL HOSPITAL KOTTAYAM
EXHIBIT P11	THE TRUE COPY OF THE HAEMATOLOGY LAB REPORT DATED 01.06.2022 ISSUED BY GENERAL HOSPITAL KOTTAYAM IN REGARD TO THE PETITIONER HAVING OP/ IP NUMBER 146991
EXHIBIT P12	THE TRUE COPY OF THE OUTPATIENT RECORD DATED 04.06.2022 HAVING O. P. NO. - OP 151281/22 ISSUED BY GENERAL HOSPITAL KOTTAYAM
EXHIBIT P13	THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 04.06.2022 ISSUED BY DR. SINDHU G. NAIR TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P14	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.06.2022 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶51

WP(C) NO.22190 OF 2022

¶52

¶53

EXHIBIT P15	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.06.2022 HAVING NUMBER 98C/DTPC/KTM/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P15(A)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER WHICH CONTAINED EXT.P15 HAVING THE SENDERS AND RECEIVERS ADDRESS WITH STAMPS INTACT
EXHIBIT P16	THE TRUE COPY OF THE OUTPATIENT RECORD DATED 08.06.2022 HAVING OP NUMBER-OP156503/22 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL HOSPITAL KOTTAYAM TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P17	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.06.2022 HAVING NUMBER 98C/DTPC/KTM/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT17(A)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER WHICH CONTAINED EXT.P17 HAVING THE SENDERS AND RECEIVERS ADDRESS WITH STAMPS INTACT
EXHIBIT P18	THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DESHABHIMANI NEWSPAPER, KOTTAYAM EDITION DATED 30.05.2022 IN REGARD TO THE QUOTATION NOTICE DATED 29.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P19	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN REGARD TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN
EXHIBIT P20	THE TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED SANNADHASENA VOLUNTEER TRANSIT PASS HAVING TRANSIT PASS ID NUMBER: 419686/2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R2(A)	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 01-06-2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL , KOTTAYAM
EXHIBIT R2(B)	TRUE COPY OF REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DATED 04-06-2022
EXHIBIT R2(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS REGARDING THE CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS OF THE WRIT PETITIONER OBTAINED FROM THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF , KOTTAYAM DATED 16-07-2022

¶54

TRUE COPY

¶55

P.A. TO JUDGE

Libin K Issac v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Libin K Issac v. the 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

Abu R.Onampalam Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited

Thomas Varkey Vs 1. The District Collector

Mohammed Haris K Vs State of Gujarat

Raji Mathew & Co. Vs Union of India

Basil Thomas Vs Canara Bank, Pala Branch

Sanal Kumar K P Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.