Disposed

M & T Constructions v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jul 2022WP(C)/6192/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner in a writ of certiorari challenged the ability to perform construction work due to insufficient site width. The court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation request for a closure agreement and pass a reasoned order after an opportunity of hearing within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.1.2022 for a closure agreement and pass a reasoned order after hearing within one month.

M & T Constructions Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 6192 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

M & T CONSTRUCTIONS
VALIYAKAVALA, VAIKOM.P.O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
MANOJ KRISHNA, S/O.PADMANABHA PILLAI,
AGED 56 YEARS.
BY ADV BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶9

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, MINI CIVIL STATION,KOTTAYAM686001.

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

GP P.S.APPU

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 6192 OF 2022

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 8^th day of July, 2022

¶17

The petitioner was awarded the work of construction of regulator across Kakkathodu at Chorichi Bhagom in Ayarkunnam, as per P1. After the site was handed over, petitioner realized that sufficient width for constructing the check dam is not available at the site. This fact was informed to the respondents as per Ext.P3. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P7 requiring him to complete the work and also extending the time for completion. Thereupon, petitioner preferred Ext.P8 representation requested to execute a closure agreement. The petitioner contends that it is impossible to perform the work and the petitioner should therefore be discharged without risk and cost.

¶18

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, on site inspection, the 2^nd respondent was convinced about the inadequacy of width for constructing the regulator. Even then, the petitioner is being compelled to complete the work. Reference is made to Ext.P7 to point out that the petitioner

¶19

WP(C) NO. 6192 OF 2022

¶20

¶21

is directed to complete the work by 14.10.2021, while the proceedings itself is dated 11.10.2021. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, for the time being, the petitioner will be satisfied with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P8 representation and to pass a reasoned order thereon.

¶22

3.Learned Government Pleader submitted that, taking into account the petitioner's grievances, proceedings are being initiated to issue revised estimate. Now, it is for the petitioner to decide as to whether he wants to continue the work based on the revised estimate.

¶23

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the petitioner has no interest in continuing the work even based on revised estimate, as the work is impossible of performance. Inasmuch as the relief is being confined to consideration of Ext.P8 representation, I am not delving into the merits of the contentions raised.

¶24

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, directing the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P8 representation and to a pass reasoned order thereon, after affording an

¶25

WP(C) NO. 6192 OF 2022

¶26

¶27

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order, as directed above, shall be passed within one month of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶28

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶29

¶30

WP(C) NO. 6192 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6192/2022

¶33

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY` `2017/4605/`	`OF THE` `IA ISSU`	`SELECTION NOTICE NO.A2-` `ED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY` `PERTAINING`	`OF THE` `TO EXT`	`SCHEDULE OF WORKS,` `.P1 SELECTION NOTICE.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY` `30.4.2021` `BEFORE THE`	`OF THE` `SUBMITT` `2ND RE`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `ED BY THE PETITIONER` `SPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY` `3.5.2021 S` `THE 2ND RE`	`OF THE` `UBMITTE` `SPONDEN`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `D BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE` `T.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY` `21.10.2021` `BEFORE THE`	`OF THE` `SUBMIT` `2ND RE`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `TED BY THE PETITIONER` `SPONDENT`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY` `5.11.2021` `BEFORE THE`	`OF THE` `SUBMITT` `2ND RE`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `ED BY THE PETITIONER` `SPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY` `ISSUED BY` `SERVED UPO`	`OF THE` `THE 2ND` `N THE P`	`ORDER DATED 11.10.2021` `RESPONDENT, WHICH WAS` `ETITIONER ON 10.1.2022.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY` `14.1.2022` `BEFORE THE`	`OF THE` `SUBMITT` `2ND RE`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `ED BY THE PETITIONER` `SPONDENT.`

M & T Constructions v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M & T Constructions v. 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

Suneer N a, Vs Special Deputy Tahsildar

Deepu Thomas Vs Union of India

D.Prajaraj Vs State of Kerala

Binoy M.S., Vs Kavyamol

Brothers Boat Club Edathua Vs the District Collector Alappuzha

Aparna Jayan Vs State of Kerala