Allowed

Marysadan Edathala International (Pvt.) Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jun 2022WP(C)/9003/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition challenging a notice. The Court quashed the order directing the petitioner to commence public work after being stopped, holding it was issued unilaterally without a hearing and without legal basis to force completion under original rates.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 is quashed; respondents directed to initiate appropriate proceedings after notice and hearing within three months.

Marysadan Edathala International (Pvt.) Ltd… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9003 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MARYSADAN EDATHALA INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. EDATHALA BUILDINGS, NEELEESWARAM.P.O., KALADY, ERNAKUKLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P.GEORGE, S/O.PAPPU, AGED 63 YEARS, EDATHALA HOUSE, NEELESWARAM, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADV. SRI. BABU S. NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN695001

¶11

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD(ROADS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001

¶12

3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PWD(ROADS), CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683101

¶13

4 THE ASSISTANT EXCUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS), SUB DIVISION, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683101

¶14

BY ADV. SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 9003 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 01^st day of June, 2022

¶20

The petitioner was awarded with the work of reconstruction of damaged culvert across Kaithakattuchira in Chengamanadu Grama Panchayath under Ext.P1 work order dated 06.05.2016. According to the petitioner, about one week after the work had commenced, there was large scale public agitation, which compelled the respondents to require the petitioner to stop the construction. Much later, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 notice dated 04.02.2020, asking to continue the work as per a revised design and plan. The petitioner sent Ext.P3 reply, stating that the estimate for the work had been prepared in accordance with the rates prevailing in 2014 and execution of the work as per the revised design and plan require much more work and an estimate in accordance with the existing rates will have to be taken. The communications between the parties

¶21

¶22

WP(C) NO. 9003 OF 2020

¶23

continued and ultimately culminated in Ext.P6, peremptorily calling upon the petitioner to commence the construction and putting him on notice that failure to abide by the direction will result in re-tender of the work at the petitioner’s risk and cost. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6.

¶24

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶25

that, failure to complete the construction is not for reasons attributable to the petitioner. The work was stopped at the instance of the departmental authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to demolish the construction. It is submitted that the complaint against the petitioner and the compulsion to continue the work are all politically motivated and the authorities never afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is contended that no provision under the agreement enables the respondent to compel the petitioner to take up and complete the work in accordance with the revised design and the original estimated rates.

¶26

Learned Government Pleader referred to

¶27

¶28

WP(C) NO. 9003 OF 2020

¶29

Ext.R3(b) to submit that, the original design was to construct a double box culvert, but the petitioner constructed a single box culvert. The faulty construction had resulted in the public outcry. The petitioner admitted certain irregularities in the construction as revealed from Ext.R3(f) minutes of the meeting held by the local MLA. It is contended that having committed irregularities, the petitioner was bound to complete the construction as per the original estimate.

¶30

Having heard the learned Counsel on either side and having perused the documents, I find substantial force in the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P6 is issued unilaterally, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There is substance in the contention that even if the petitioner was found to be at fault, the respondents cannot compel him to take up and complete the construction based on a revised design and the original estimate. As contended, before finding the petitioner guilty of committing

¶31

WP(C) NO. 9003 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

irregularities in relation to the construction, the authorities are bound to afford him an opportunity to offer his version/explanation. Such opportunity having not been afforded, I am compelled to interfere with Ext.P6 order.

¶34

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P6 is quashed, reserving the respondents’ liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings, after issuing notice to the petitioner and affording him an opportunity of hearing. The proceedings as directed above, shall be completed within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

NB/1-6

WP(C) NO. 9003 OF 2020

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9003/2020

¶42

PETITIONER’S EXHIB	ITS
EXHIBIT P1	TRUE PETIT	COPY IONER	OF THE WORK ORDER ISSUED TO THE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 6.5.2016
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PETIT 4.2.2	COPY IONER 020 A	OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED, S NO.DEA-1234/15
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE THE 3	COPY RD RE	OF THE REVISED ESTIMATE PREPARED BY SPONDENT DATED 11.11.2019
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE DATED	COPY , 25.	OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER 2.2020
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE 4TH R	COPY ESPON	OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE DENT DATED 09.3.2020 AS NO.A1-923/15
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE 3RD 1234/	COPY RESPO 2015	OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE NDENT DATED 13.03.2020 AS NO.DEA-
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIB	ITS: NIL
ANNEXURE R3(a)	TRUE 30.08	COPY .2017	OF LETTER NO.E10-26212/17/EKM DATED
ANNEXURE R3(b)	TRUE 03.01	COP .2017	Y OF LETTER NO.2016/1005 DATED
ANNEXURE R3(c)	TRUE	COPY	OF COMPLAINT
ANNEXURE R3(d)	TRUE	COPY	OF PETITION
ANNEXURE R3(e)	TRUE 28.01	COPY .2019	OF LETTER NO.PWD-F2/50/16/PWD DATED
ANNEXURE R3(f)	TRUE	COPY	OF MINUTES
ANNEXURE R3(g)	TRUE	COPY	OF LETTER DATED 04.01.2017
ANNEXURE R3(h)	TRUE	COY O	F LETTER DATED 08.07.2019

¶43

TRUE COPY

¶44

P.A. TO JUDGE

Marysadan Edathala International (Pvt.) Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marysadan Edathala International (Pvt.) Ltd. v. the 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

Special Tahsildar (La) Vs Sreekumarn Nair

B. Praveen Vs State of Kerala

Muthoot Fincorp Limited Vs State of Kerala

Divine Gas Enterprises Vs Union of India

Xxx Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Mathew and Co. Vs State of Kerala