Disposed

Reena Engineering and Contracting Company Ltd. v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC7 Nov 2022WP(C)/24262/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding a construction contract dispute over rate revision, the court examined the powers of the KIIFB Inspection Authority. It held that the Authority could examine the Board's rejection independently and directed the Chief Project Examiner to make a recommendation following prescribed guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 5th Respondent (Chief Project Examiner) to consider the petitioner's representation uninfluenced by the Board's prior decision and to make an appropriate recommendation within three month

Reena Engineering and Contracting Company… — 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

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 24262 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

REENA ENGINEERING AND CONTRACTING COMPANY LTD
602, SHIV TOWER, PATTO PLAZA,
PANAJI, GOA.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 403001
BY ADVS.
P.SHANES METHAR
N.KRISHNA PRASAD
S.RAMESH BABU (SR.)

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
2THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
O/O. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P H CIRCLE (MALAPPURAM)
MALAPPURAM., PIN - 676505
3THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
O/O. OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
PROJECT DIVISION, MALAPPURAM., PIN - 676505
4KERALA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND BOARD (KIIFB)
2ND FLOOR, FELICITY SQUARE, STATUE JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PIN - 695001
5CHIEF PROJECT EXAMINER
INSPECTION AUTHORITY (TECHNICAL)
KIIFB, SECOND FLOOR, FELICITY SQUARE,
STATUE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADV P.M.JOHNY

¶10

sc FOR KIIFB -SRI. S CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C) NO. 24262 OF 2022

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Dated this the 07^th day of November, 2022

¶16

The petitioner was awarded the work of a ‘’KIIFB- WRD-

¶17

025-25-Manjeri Suburban drinking water project-

¶18

Improvement and augmentation of UWSS to Manjeri Municipality, including water supply arrangements to Payyanad Thadamparambu area- Package II- Laying clear water pumping main, clear water gravity main and Distribution system”, based on Ext.P1 tender floated by the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner alleges that for reasons not attributable to it, the work could not achieve the desired progress. This resulted in the petitioner sustaining huge loss due to price escalation. The petitioner therefore requested the Water Authority to recommend for payment of differential cost. As there was no positive response, the petitioner approached this court seeking a direction to the Water Authority to consider the request for revision of rates. By Ext.P22 judgment, this court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no direction can be issued since the parties are governed by the terms of the contract, and there being no

¶19

WP(C) NO. 24262 OF 2022

¶20

¶21

provision for revision of rates in the agreement. The petitioner challenged that judgment in appeal and the Division Bench directed the petitioner’s representation to be forwarded to the Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority for placing before the Board for consideration in accordance with the statutory provisions. In compliance of the direction, the petitioner’s representation was placed before the Board meeting held on 26.06.2022. The Board rejected petitioner’s request for enhancement of rates, as revealed from Ext.P25 minutes of the Board Meeting. Aggrieved this writ petition is filed.

¶22

2.When the writ petition was taken up for consideration, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that, Section 17A of the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Act, 1999, incorporated by Amendment Act 15 of 2016(‘the Act’ for short), empowers the Inspection Authority constituted under Section 17A to consider any issue, including the decision taken by the Board of the Water Authority.

¶23

WP(C) NO. 24262 OF 2022

¶24

¶25

In view of the afore submission, it is essential to

¶26

advert to Section 17A of the Act, which reads as under:-

¶27

“17A. Power to appoint an Inspection Authority.— (1) The Government may by general or special order, appoint an inspection authority comprising of such persons as it deems fit to inspect any projects and the documents of any Special Purpose Vehicle implementing the same that has been financed by the Board.

¶28

(2) Such Authority shall have the powers to call for documents from any Special Purpose Vehicle and inspect its office, site and premises of the projects implemented by it”.

¶29

Indisputably, the Inspection Authority is having the power to inspect any projects and the documents of the Special Purpose Vehicle, viz; the Kerala Water Authority in the instant case. The procedure to be followed by the Inspection Authority is detailed in Ext.P26 guidelines issued by the Chief Executive Officer of KIIFB. Going by the guidelines, the Inspection Authority will have two wings namely, technical inspection wing and administrative inspection wing. The areas of technical examination include measurement of items and building methods, variations deviations etc in the items and quantities, recommendations to KIIFB/SPV in case of contingencies like contractor leaving the work before completion, inordinate delay in execution of work or similar

¶30

WP(C) NO. 24262 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

situations. The guidelines also indicate that, the areas of technical examination are not limited to the enumerated aspects alone.

¶33

Taking into account the purpose behind the introduction of Section 17A, I am of the considered opinion that the issue raised by the petitioner and the decision taken by the Board can be subject to examination by the Inspection Authority.

¶34

Learned Standing Counsel for the KIIFB submitted that Water Authority having rejected the petitioner’s claim, no purpose will be served by the Inspection Authority considering the issue and making its recommendation.

¶35

Despite the objection, I find the learned Senior Counsel’s suggestion to be well founded. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, directing the 5^th respondent to consider Ext.P27 representation uninfluenced by Ext.P25 decision of the Kerala Water Authority and to make appropriate recommendation following the procedure prescribed in Ext.P26 guidelines, within an outer limit of

¶36

WP(C) NO. 24262 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such the time, the interim arrangement

¶39

ordered by this Court shall continue to be in force.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

V.G ARUN

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

¶44

WP(C) NO. 24262 OF 2022

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24262/2022

¶47

`PETITIO`	`NER EXHI`	`BITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO. SE/PHC/MPM/62` `10.11.2020`	`NOTICE INVITING TENDER` `/2020-21 DATED`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `PIU/ (2)/KIIFB/TD` `DATED 20.1.2021 O`	`PROCEEDINGS NO. KWA/ HO/` `-6/MANJERY-(PK-2)/2020` `F THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `25.01.2021 ISSUED`	`WORK ORDER DATED` `BY 2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF AGRE` `SE/PHC/MPM/52/202` `DATED 18.02.2021`	`EMENT NO..` `0-21 WORKS CONTRACT`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `22.02.2021 PLACED` `SRIKALAHASTHI PIP`	`PURCHASE ORDER DATED` `BY THE PETITIONER TO` `ES LTD.`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `15.03.2021 TO KIS`	`PURCHASE ORDER DATED` `SAN MOULDING LIMITED`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SUBMITTED BY THE` `2ND RESPONDENT`	`LETTER DATED 26.03.2021` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SUBMITTED BY THE` `2ND RESPONDENT`	`LETTER DATED 10.05.2021` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SUBMITTED BY THE` `RESPONDENT`	`LETTER DATED 27.05.2021` `PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND`
`Exhibit`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `10.05.2021 SUBMIT`	`RA BILL NO. 1 DATED` `TED BY THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DB-PD/1780B/MSDWP` `03.06.2021 OF THE`	`LETTER NO.` `/KIIFB-17-18 DATED` `3RD RESPONDEN`
`Exhibit`	`P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `OF THE PETITIONER`	`LETTER DATED 09.06.2021`
`Exhibit`	`P13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `OF THE PETITIONER` `RESPONDENT`	`LETTER DATED 30.06.2021` `ADDRESSED TO 3RD`
`Exhibit`	`P14`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `OF THE PETITIONER`	`LETTER DATED 13.07.2021` `TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P15`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `PD/1780B/MSDWP/KI` `12.07.2021 OF THE`	`ORDER NO.` `IFB 17-18 DATED` `3 RESPONDENT`

¶48

WP(C) NO. 24262 OF 2022

¶49

¶50

`Exhibit P16`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `OF THE PETITIONER` `ENGINEE`	`LETTER DATED 28.07.2021` `TO THE ASSISTANT`
`Exhibit P17`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `KML/22/390 DATED` `MOULDING LIMITED`	`COMMUNICATION NO.` `27.07.2021 OF KISSAN`
`Exhibit P18`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `OF THE PETITIONER` `RESPONDENT`	`LETTER DATED 30.07.2021` `ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD`
`Exhibit P19`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ADDRESSED TO THE`	`LETTER 01.09.2021` `2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P20`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `(FOR ROAD CUTTING`	`MOU DATED 27.09.2021` `)`
`Exhibit P21`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `19.10.2021`	`QUOTATION DATED`
`Exhibit P22`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `03.03.2022 IN W.P`	`JUDGMENT DATED` `.(C) 451/2022`
`Exhibit P23`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `25.05.2022IN WA N`	`JUDGMENT DATED` `O. 415/2022`
`Exhibit24`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `KWA DATED 22.06.2`	`PROCEEDINGS OF THE MD` `02`
`Exhibit P25`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `MEETING OF THE BO`	`MINUTES OF THE 426TH` `ARD OF 1ST RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P26`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `1/160/2017/KIIFB` `4TH RESPONDENT`	`ORDER NO. INS-` `DATED 22.12.2017 OF THE`
`Exhibit P27`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `4.07.22 SUBMITTED` `BEFORE THE 4TH RE`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `BY THE PETITIONER` `SPONDENT`

Reena Engineering and Contracting Company Ltd. v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reena Engineering and Contracting Company Ltd. v. Kerala Water Authority

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

K.S.Anil Vs the State of Kerala

Dr. Sumitha Nandan Vs Kerala Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

Krishna Engineering Vs Commander Works Engineer

M/S.Eternity Pools and Gardens Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dr. E.K.Satheesh

R.S. Santhosh Kumar Vs the South Indian Bank

Thulaseedhara Kurup .G, Vs the Kerala State Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Commission