Disposed

Bismi S. Baby, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Dec 2022WP(C)/7612/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding non-payment of dues for road construction under MNREGA, the Court directed State mission authorities to examine and sanction the pending bill within one month and ensure payment to the petitioner within two weeks after sanction. Directions were given to the Panchayath to transfer funds upon receipt from the State.

What did the court decide?

Direct the State Mission authorities to process the bill within one month, secure FTO, transfer funds to the Panchayath, and ensure payment to the petitioner within two weeks of receipt.

Bismi S. Baby, 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7612 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BISMI S. BABY,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.BABY, VEMPUZHAPARAMBIL, VALIYAPARAMBU P.O,
THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADVS.
R.SUNIL KUMAR
A.SALINI LAL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL
SELF GOVERNMENT , GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA 688 561

¶12

3 ADDL.R3, MISSION DIRECTOR MAHATMA GANDHI NREGA, STATE MISSION, 5TH FLOOR, SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 003.

¶13

4 ADDL R4, DISTRICT PROGRAM CORDINATOR, MAHATMA GANDHI NREGA, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA-688001.

¶14

5 ADDL R5, JOINT PROGRAMME CORDINATOR, MAHATMA GANDHI NREGA, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. ADDL R3 TO ADDL R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25-112022 IN IA 1/2022 IN WP(C)7612/2022.

¶15

BY ADV K. R. Sunil

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.K.M.FAISAL, GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C). No. 7612 of 2022 2

¶20

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶21

WP(C). No. 7612 of 2022

¶22

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2022

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶25

“(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 11,41,203.41/- with interest at the rate of 12% forthwith.

¶26

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to issue fund transfer order forthwith.

¶27

(iii) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ”[SIC]

¶28

Petitioner is aggrieved by the act of the respondents in not giving the fund transfer order and the amount due to the petitioner

¶29

in connection with the gravelling and metalling construction of

¶30

WP(C). No. 7612 of 2022 3

¶31

Warriamkode Road-Akkanteparambu road. It is the case of the petitioner that, for the gravelling and metalling of warriamkode road under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme 2020-2021 a tender was called for and the petitioner got the tender and quotation was confirmed on 14.02.2020. The length of the road was 499 meter, so the work was allotted as 3 reaches. The 1^st reach was for 166 meter, 2^nd reach was for 166 meter and the 3^rd reach was for 167 meter. The work was allotted for an amount of Rs. 4.99 lakhs per stage. The EMD for the three reaches was Rs. 68,000/- which the petitioner was given as bank guarantee. It is the case of the petitioner that he has executed 3 agreement for the 3 reaches. Ext.P2 is the agreement dated 19.03.2020 and Exts.P3 and P4 are the other agreements. After executing the agreement, the 2^nd respondent issued the supply order and Ext.P5 is the copy of the letter of the 2^nd respondent. But the cost of the materials was not given to the petitioner as per the measurement. Copy of the details of the work along with questions obtained under the Right to Information Act is produced as Ext.P6 in the writ petition.

¶32

WP(C). No. 7612 of 2022 4

¶33

Petitioner after accepting the work completed the same within 3 months. After completing the work the officers attached to the 2^nd respondent measured the length and width and approved an amount of Rs. 3,68,985.25/- for the 1^st reach as evident by Ext. P7 M-Book. For the 2^nd reach after measuring the length and width an amount of Rs. 3,88,596.33/- was approved as per Ext.P8. For the 3^rd reach after measuring the length and width an amount of Rs.3,89,621.83/was approved. Ext.P9 is the M-Book. According to the petitioner a total amount of Rs.11,41,203.41/- is due to the petitioner. The amount is not paid to the petitioner. Hence this writ petition is filed.

¶34

When this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the panchayath submitted that the bill for payment of the amount is already forwarded to the 5^th respondent as per proceedings No. SC 3-2378/2022 dated 04-112022.

¶35

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent that the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have to sanction the amount and once the amount is received, the panchayath will release

¶36

WP(C). No. 7612 of 2022 5

¶37

the same to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the EMD amount of Rs. 68,000/- is already released. If that is the case, there can be a direction to the respondents 3 to 5 to process the bill within a time frame and disburse the amount to the 2^nd respondent panchayath and there can be a further direction to the 2^nd respondent panchayath to pay the amount to the petitioner after getting the amount.

¶38

Therefore this writ petition is disposed of with following directions:

¶39

There will be a direction to the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to process the bill bearing No. SC 3-2378/2022 dated 04-11-2022 submitted by the 2^nd respondent as expeditiously as possible at any rate within one month from from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

Within the above period itself respondent Nos. 3 to 5 should intimate the result to the 2^nd respondent. If the bill is sanctioned, the 3^rd respondent will give the necessary permission to the 2^nd respondent to upload all the bills through FTO (Fund Transfer Order) during the above period itself. Once the amount is received,

¶41

WP(C). No. 7612 of 2022 6

¶42

the 2^nd respondent will pay the amount to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of the amount from respondent Nos.

¶43

3 to 5.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶46

mtk

¶47

WP(C). No. 7612 of 2022 7

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7612/2022

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

Exhibit P1COPY OF THE BANK GURANTEE DATED 2.3.2020.
Exhibit P2COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO. 13847 DATED
19.03.2020.
Exhibit P3COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO. 13848 DATED
19.3.2020.

¶51

Exhibit P4COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO. 13849 DATED
19.3.2020.

¶52

Exhibit P5COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 10.06.2020.

¶53

Exhibit P6COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE WORK ALONG
WITH QUESTIONS OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT
TO INFORMATION ACT, DATED 31.8.2021.
Exhibit P7COPY OF THE M-BOOK FOR THE 1ST REACH.
Exhibit P8COPY OF THE M-BOOK OF THE 2ND REACH
Exhibit P9COPY OF THE M-BOOK FOR THE 3RD REACH
Exhibit P10COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE PAYMENT
OF GST DATED 28.12.2021.

¶54

Exhibit P11COPY OF REPLY ISSUED UNDER RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT ALONG WITH QUESTIONS
DATED 17.2.2022.

Bismi S. Baby, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bismi S. Baby, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Lathika Vs State of Kerala

Joseph K.George Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Gospel for Asia, Vs the State of Kerala

K.K.Paulose Vs a.T.Paulose

Savithri P Vs the State of Kerala

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Princy Ninan