Disposed

Ajayan.K.Madhavan v. the Chief Engineer, Transmission (North)

Kerala HC1 Aug 2022WP(C)/22573/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, the lowest bidder for a transmission upgrade project, sought release of a security deposit withheld due to a stay in a competing writ petition. The Court directed the respondent KSEB to return the deposit within one week while dismissing the interest claim on this petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to release security amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within one week; interest claim dismissed with liberty to file civil suit.

Ajayan.K.Madhavan Vs the Chief Engineer… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 22573 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

AJAYAN.K.MADHAVAN
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O MADHAVAN, KAKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
M.C.ROAD, PULLUVAZHY,
PERUMBAVOOR
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683541

¶8

BY ADVS.
VIJU THOMAS
M.MEENA JOHN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1THE CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION (NORTH)
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
VYDUTHI BHAVANAM, GHANDHI ROAD,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673011

¶11

2STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOR
ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001

¶12

BY ADV. KEERTHIVAS GIRI – SC KSEB

¶13

GP SRI JIMMY GEORGE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 22573 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Petitioner is a contractor and for undertaking the task of laying the upgradation of 12.5 Km of 66KV Pududkkad Kattoor SC line to 110 KV DC line submitted a tender invited by the respondent Kerala State Electricity Board, after remitting a security of Rs.1,00,000/-. On 30.06.2016, the bid was opened and the petitioner was declared to be lowest bidder. On 07.07.2016, one of the competitors preferred a writ petition bearing No.22917 of 2016 and by order dated 08.07.2016, this Court restrained the respondents 1 and 2 ie., Kerala State Electricity Board from awarding the work to the petitioner. The order reads thus:

¶19

Notice by Special Messenger to the fourth respondent. Learned Standing Counsel takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the fifth respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 are restrained from awarding work as per Ext.P1 to the fourth respondent for a period of two weeks. It is made clear that other proceedings can go on.”

¶20

Today that writ has been withdrawn.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents says that the

¶22

WP(C) NO. 22573 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

petitioner did not want the work and much time has elapsed.

¶25

There is no difficulty for the KSEB to return the security.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the security as the aforementioned amount of Rs.1,00,000/- had been lying in the custody and being utilised by the respondents for a period of more than six years.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

¶28

The factum of deposit of security of Rs.1,00,000/- in

¶29

pursuance to the invitation of the bid by the respondents and petitioner being declared the lowest bidder is not in dispute. A competitor - Varuna Engineering Works had challenged the aforementioned process by filing W.P(C). No.22917 of 2016 and as per the order extracted above, there was interdiction. In this view of the matter, KSEB could not allot work to the petitioner. Much time has elapsed and W.P.(C).No.22917 of 2016 has been withdrawn.

¶30

WP(C) NO. 22573 OF 2022

¶31

4

¶32

In view of the statement made by the KSEB that they

¶33

are ready to release the security amount, I direct the respondents to release the security amount of Rs.1,00,000/within a period of one week from the date of the receipt of the copy of this judgment, by way of a draft or pay order in the name of the petitioner. As regards the claim of the interest, prima facie, I am of the view that there was no fault of the KSEB of withholding the amount as they were obeying the order of this Court. Petitioner is at liberty to claim interest in accordance with law against the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.22197 of 2016 by taking the remedy under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶34

Writ petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

nak

WP(C) NO. 22573 OF 2022

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22573/2022

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶42

Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 30/06/16
Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT
DATED 07/04/22

Ajayan.K.Madhavan v. the Chief Engineer, Transmission (North)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajayan.K.Madhavan v. the Chief Engineer, Transmission (North)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Director, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre Vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum-Labour Court

The Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., Vs the State of Kerala

Balamuraleedharan Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Thahir Vs v R Premkumar

Classified Hotels and Resorts Association of Kerala Vs State of Kerala

Dr. P.Narayanan Nair Vs the Assessment Officer (Deputy Labour Officer)