The Court closed the writ petition as infructuous after finding that an interim order dated 09.02.2018 had already directed the respondents to accept a tender from the petitioner and process it based on experience evidence.
The writ petition was closed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP(C) NO. 4107 OF 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 4107 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
M/S.CHICAGO CONSTRUCTIONS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. CHITHIRA LANE, KOCHAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.S.MOHANAKUMAR.
BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN SMT.MARIA ROY SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY P.M.JOHNY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 4107 OF 2018
2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, commanding the second respondent to consider Ext.P3 experience certificate submitted by the petitioner, while assessing the eligibility of the petitioner for the work tendered as per Exhibit P1.
2. When the matter was taken up for consideration on
09.02.2018, the following order was passed.
“SC for respondents seeks time for filing counter. In the meanwhile there will be a direction to accept a tender from the petitioner and process the same, taking into account the work carried out by him as per Ext.P3 certificate. The same will be provisional, subject to further orders to be passed by this Court either interim or final ”
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view
of the interim order passed, the petitioner has no further grievance.
This writ petition is closed as infructuous.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
IAP
M/s.Chicago Constructions International Pvt. Ltd.
The K.E. Water Authority
The S.E. K.E. Water Authority
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
