Disposed

M/S.Irikkur Construction Company v. the Project Director

Kerala HC1 Feb 2022WP(C)/7182/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Kerala directed respondent authorities to verify bills submitted by an A Class construction company for emergency highway work and settle the dues within two months, rejecting indefinite delays.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of by directing respondents 1 to 3 to verify the petitioner's bills and settle dues within two months.

M/S.Irikkur Construction Company Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 12TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7182 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

M/S.IRIKKUR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.T ZIYAD, S/O. MAMMU HAJI, AGED 46 YEARS, AMMENA MANZIL IRIKKUR P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT 670 593. BY ADVS. M.PROMODH KUMAR SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT (KSTP), TC 11/339, JAGAD BUILDING, KESTON ROAD, NANTHENCODE, KOWDIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.

¶10

2 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT DIVISION, NEAR ENGINEERS CENTRE, BABY BEACH ROAD, KANNUR 670 013.

¶11

3 CHIEF ENGINEER (P), KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT, PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 65001.

¶12

4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶13

SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR SR.GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶15

01.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 7182 OF 2021 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2022

¶19

The petitioner, which is an A Class contractor and is entrusted with the emergency work Thalassery-Valavupara State Highway-30 up to KM 42/100, has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner Ext.P2 bill amount with interest.

¶20

The petitioner is a Construction Company. The petitioner was awarded the emergency work ThalasseryValavupara State Highway-30 up to KM 42/100. On completion of the work, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 bill for `8,57,509.12.

¶21

The petitioner states that the petitioner was paid amount for the work done up to 42/100. The petitioner approached the respondents for payment of balance amount. The 2^nd respondent-Executive Engineer as per Ext.P3 requested the 1^st respondent-Project Director to take necessary steps for settlement of the bill of the petitioner. Pursuant to the

¶22

WP(C) NO. 7182 OF 2021 3

¶23

judgment of this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment, the 1^st respondent considered the petitioner's claim and rejected the same as per Ext.P7 order holding that the petitioner has not submitted the claim in time and not opted for the in-built mechanism provided under the agreement for resolution of dispute. The petitioner states that denial of the amount due to the petitioner after extracting the work, is illegal and unsustainable.

¶24

The learned Government Pleader appeared on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the work completed by the petitioner and the bill will have to be verified by respondents 1 to 3. After verification of the work carried out only, the petitioner can be paid the amount.

¶25

As long as the petitioner has carried out the work entrusted to them, this Court is of the view that their claim for settlement of bill cannot be indefinitely delayed for the reason that the verification of the works and bills is not due by the respondents.

¶26

WP(C) NO. 7182 OF 2021 4

¶27

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 to 3 to verify the bills of the petitioner and take necessary steps to settle the bills of the petitioner. Payment of the amounts found due to the petitioner shall be

¶28

made within a period of two months.

Sd/- N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) NO. 7182 OF 2021 5

¶33

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7182/2021

¶34

PETITIO	NER EXHI	BITS
EXHIBIT	P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SCHEDULE FORMS PART OF THE AGREEMENT NO. 264/KSTP/PMT/PWD /2015 DATED 22.05.2015.
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF MEASUREMENT SHEET AND BILL QUANTITIES WITH DETAILED CALCULATION OF WORK CARRIED OUT FROM KM 42/100 TO 45/100.
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DAD 23.01.2016.
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER PRESENTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.04.2017.
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01.08.2017.
EXHIBIT	P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 17394/2018 DATED 13.06.2018.
EXHIBIT	P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17.10.2018.

M/S.Irikkur Construction Company v. the Project Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Irikkur Construction Company v. the Project Director

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

R. Elangovan Vs the Inspector

Mayamol M. Vs State of Kerala

Jyothi Lakshmi K.M. Vs the Central Bank of India

L R Lakshmanan, Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

M/S. Marjan Gold Pvt.Ltd., Vs Union of India

Mohammed Musthafa, Vs Kerala Water Authority