Allowed

K P Shajan v. Thrissur Corporation

Kerala HC18 Feb 2022WP(C)/782/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ to direct public authorities to pay unpaid construction bills totaling 47.26 lakh. Court held diligence of work is established but due to pending vigilance inquiry, payment was delayed. Directed respondents to process and pay bills within two months after petitioner furnishes an indemnity bond.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to process and pay the petitioner's bills within two months after obtaining an indemnity bond from the petitioner.

K P Shajan Vs Thrissur Corporation — 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

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 29TH MAGHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 782 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

K P SHAJAN
AGED 54 YEARS
KALAPPURA (H), KALLUR P. O., THRISSUR - 680 317.
BY ADV SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THRISSUR CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR - 680 021.

¶9

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER E2 THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR - 680 021.

¶10

3 THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI - CORRUPTION BUREAU REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, VACB DIRCTORATE, PMG, VIKAS BHAVAN P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. BY ADV SHRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION

¶11

SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL- GP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 782 OF 2022 2

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2022

¶16

The petitioner, who has undertaken a work of the 1^st respondent for construction of “Ayyanthole Zonal Side protection of Thodu and providing Cover Slab at Laloor to Karthiyani Ambalm in DN 50”, is before this Court seeking to direct respondents 1 and 2 to make payment of `47,26,992/due to the petitioner as per Ext.P2 immediately without any further delay.

¶17

The petitioner states that the work undertaken by the petitioner was completed within the stipulated time, by 16.03.2020. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 Bills. The Bills are not honoured.

¶18

It is submitted by respondents 1 and 2 that Vigilance Department raised objections in respect of the contract due to which the Bills are not forwarded to the Treasury. The petitioner submits that he had availed financial assistance from various

¶19

WP(C) NO. 782 OF 2022 3

¶20

sources and has to pay interest for the loans taken. The delay in honouring the petitioner's Bill would cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner.

¶21

The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner has completed the work. While respondents 1 and 2 were processing the Bills of the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent required respondents 1 and 2 to handover the files relating to the work for some enquiry. Since the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau is investigating into the regularity of the work, they are not in a position to process or honour the Bill.

¶22

The learned Government Pleader submitted that on the basis of some complaints, the Vigilance and AntiCorruption Bureau is making preliminary enquiries in the matter. An FIR, Preliminary Enquiry Report and Sanction Application as per Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is pending consideration before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur.

¶23

WP(C) NO. 782 OF 2022 4

¶24

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for the 3^rd respondent.

¶25

The fact that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with respondents 1 and 2 and executed the work undertaken is not in dispute. The petitioner has submitted his Final Bills also. The petitioner has carried out the work availing financial assistance from various Institutions. The mere action of the 3^rd respondent in requiring the files in respect of the work cannot be a reason for respondents 1 and 2 to withhold payments.

¶26

The learned Government Pleader submits that the FIR and Application for Sanction for Prosecution are pending consideration before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance Court, Thrissur. As long as there is no orders from the Vigilance Court, Thrissur, respondents 1 and 2 cannot withhold the payment due to the petitioner.

¶27

WP(C) NO. 782 OF 2022 5

¶28

In the circumstances, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to

¶29

process and pay the Bills due to the petitioner, in accordance

¶30

with law, within a period of two months, after obtaining an

¶31

indemnity bond from the petitioner.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) NO. 782 OF 2022 6

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 782/2022

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CERTIFICATE
WITH FINAL BILL.
Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
8.11.2021.

¶40

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL

K P Shajan v. Thrissur Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K P Shajan v. Thrissur Corporation

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

Amritha Das Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Pradeep P., Vs State of Kerala

M.K Mohammed Saleem Vs T.T Nisamudheen

Kunnamkulam Nidhi Limited Vs Rajesh Verma

David P.V Vs Ministry of Environment

Ahmmed Kutty P Vs State of Kerala