Disposed

Alias K Kuriakose, v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC9 Feb 2022WP(C)/3240/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractor petitioner sought direction to dispose of representation and permit closure of agreement by relieving him from balance work pending cost escalation. Court directed 3rd respondent to consider representation within two weeks and prohibits proceeding with termination order.

What did the court decide?

Directed 3rd respondent to consider petitioner's Ext P9 representation within two weeks and barred proceeding with Ext P8 until such decision.

Alias K Kuriakose, Vs Kerala Water Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 20TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3240 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ALIAS K KURIAKOSE, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. KURIAKOSE, CONTRACTOR, KOCHERIL HOUSE, OORAMANA P.O., RAMAMANGALAM VIA, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 663.

¶8

BY ADVS. BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA K.S.ARCHANA MOHAMMED SHAFI.K M.G.SREEJITH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

2 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PH CIRCLE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 661.

¶12

3 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PH DIVISION, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 584.

¶13

BY ADV SHRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C)No.3240/2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2022

¶19

The petitioner who is a contractor, has

¶20

approached this Court seeking to direct the 3^rd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P9 representation and further to command the 3^rd respondent to permit the petitioner to execute the closure agreement, by relieving the petitioner from the execution of the balance work involved in Agreement dated 15.02.2019.

¶21

The petitioner submits that he was awarded the contract for replacement of RWSS to Nedumkandom and Pampadumpara, re-laying of 100mm D1 Distribution lines from Tank to Police Station. The petitioner executed an agreement on 15.02.2019. The agreement required the

¶22

WP(C)No.3240/2022

¶23

¶24

petitioner to complete the work within a period of four months. The said four months period expired on 14.06.2019.

¶25

The petitioner would submit that the work could not be proceeded since road cutting permit was not issued by the PWD. The respondents did not take any steps to obtain road cutting permit for making trenches in the PWD road. The said permit was received only on 18.02.2021, that is after more than two years of the agreement. In the meanwhile, the petitioner requested the respondents to revise the estimate taking into consideration the cost escalation. The respondents have not taken any decision on the request made by the petitioner.

¶26

In the meanwhile, the 3^rd respondent-Executive Engineer has issued Ext.P8 order commanding the petitioner to resume the work within 15 days, failing which the petitioner was threatened with termination of the contract at the risk and cost of the petitioner.

¶27

WP(C)No.3240/2022

¶28

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶30

submit that Ext.P8 communication of the 3^rd respondentExecutive Engineer is highly arbitrary and unwarranted. It is not due to any fault of the petitioner that the work could not be proceeded for two years. The PWD issued road cutting permit long after the expiry of the period fixed for the construction and after expiry of two years.

¶31

In such circumstances, without considering the request of the petitioner for cost escalation, the 3^rd respondent cannot force the petitioner to resume the work or to terminate the work at the risk and cost of the petitioner.

¶32

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents entered appearance and opposed the writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that since the petitioner has raised a grievance, the 3^rd respondent can consider it in accordance with law.

¶33

¶34

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶36

petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 3.

¶37

From the pleadings, it emerges that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P9 representation to the 3^rd respondentExecutive Engineer requiring to sanction the schedule of rates approved by PWD as on 26.03.2021 for executing the balance work. The petitioner has categorically stated that unless there is a revision in the matter, the petitioner cannot execute the balance work. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the 3^rd respondent should consider Ext.P9 representation submitted by the petitioner without proceeding with the action proposed in Ext.P8.

¶38

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P9 representation submitted by the petitioner and take a decision thereon, within a period of two weeks. The 3^rd

¶39

¶40

¶41

respondent shall not proceed with Ext.P8 proposal till a decision is taken on Ext.P9 as directed above.

¶42

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3240/2022

¶47

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶48

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE IST	PAG	E OF
	SELECTION NOTICE DATED ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDEN	12. T.	2.2019
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDUL COMPRISED IN THE AGREEMENT.	E OF	WORK
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO INVOLVED IN THE AGREEMENT.	OF	WORK
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTA 20.2.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.	TION PETI	DATED TIONER
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTA 3.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.	TION PETI	DATED TIONER
Exhibit P5 (A)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESEN 24.11.2020 SUBMITTED PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND R	TED BY ESPON	DATED THE DENT.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMEN HONBLE COURT DATED 26.3.20 NO. 1750/2021.	T OF 21 I	THIS N WPC
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETT	ER	DATED
	15.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KWA, DIVISION PAINAVU.	ASS PH	ISTANT SUB
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE LETT	ER	DATED
	31.12.2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT.	THE	3RD
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTA 11.1.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.	TION PETI	DATED TIONER

Alias K Kuriakose, v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alias K Kuriakose, 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

Kripa Charitable Society Vs District Social Justice Officer

Muraleedharan Pillai Vs Land Revenue Commissioner

Sherly Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited (Ksfe)

Purathur Maveli Store Samrashana Samathi Purathur Represented by Its Convener Vs State of Kerala Represented by Its Principal Secretary

Joseph M.C Vs Kerala State Beverages Corporation Limited

Kjv Alloy Conductors Pvt. Ltd, Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.