Remanded

Prajaraj D. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Aug 2022WP(C)/9921/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this wager petition for remuneration of construction work stopped prematurely, the Court noted conflicting evidence regarding the timing of a soil test direction versus site handover. The Court disposed of the petition by remitting the matter to the first respondent for a detailed hearing with an opportunity for the petitioner to file representations and documents. It directed the respondent to

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file detailed representation with documents; first respondent to hear petitioner and decide within three months.

Prajaraj D. Vs State of Kerala — 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 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 2ND BHADRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9921 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

PRAJARAJ D.
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. DAMODHARAN (LATE), THUNDIL RAJ BHAVAN,
PUTHIYAKAVU, KILIMANUR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
J.JULIAN XAVIER
SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN
SRI.ROY JOSEPH
SRI.JOSE. V.V. (THENGATHARA)
SMT.ANIES MATHEW
SRI.E.HARIDAS

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRAVEL AND TOURISM (C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶10

2 THE DIRECTOR TRAVEL AND TOURISM DEPARTMENT, PARK AVENUE, PERURKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005.

¶11

3 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, BUILDING DIVISION, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

4 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUB DIVISION, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶13

5 ASSISTANT ENGINEER BUILDING SECTION, VELLAYAMBALAM, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶14

6MANAGING DIRECTOR
STEEL INDUSTRIES KERALA LIMITED (SILK) SILK NAGAR,
ATHANI PO, MINALUR, THRISSUR-680 581.
BY ADV LATHA ANAND

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

GP RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE
STANDING COUNCEL FOR THE 6TH RESPONDENT ADV. LATHA
ANAND

¶17

¶18

WP(C) NO. 9921 OF 2021

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO. 9921 OF 2021

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT Dated this the 24^th day of August, 2022

¶23

The petitioner was entrusted with the construction of auditorium at Kattikonam in Kazhakuttom Constituency. The site was handed over to the petitioner on 27.12.2019. The period of contract is fixed as eight months. According to the petitioner, he commenced construction immediately after the site was handed over but was asked to stop the work at a later stage by the engineer concerned. Subsequently, the work was abandoned. Now the work of construction of amenity centre for the Kattaikonam Thenguvila Sree Mahadevi Temple has been entrusted to the 6^th respondent. The work is being carried out in the same site by the petitioner had defected constructions in connection with the auditorium. The petitioner demand is that his bills raised for the works executed will be paid immediately.

¶24

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had commenced the work pursuant to the agreement and under supervision of the engineer

¶25

WP(C) NO. 9921 OF 2021

¶26

4

¶27

concerned. The work was stopped only at the instance of the officials by which time substantial amount had been expended for the work executed. As such there is absolutely no justification for denying the amounts expended by the petitioner for the work entrusted with him. Reference is made to Ext.P9 letter issued by the Minister for Devaswom and Ext.P14 minutes of the meeting, to submit that the work had to be stopped due to dispute between the engineers entrusted with the supervision of the work.

¶28

Learned Government Pleader submitted that, on 27.12.2019, the date on which the site was handed over to the petitoner, the Assistant Executive Engineer inspected the site and found that the construction could be commenced only after conducting a soil test. It is alleged that despite the direction to wait till the result of the soil test was received, the petitioner cotinued with the work and therefore, the officers had to intervene and stop the work. It is hence contended that the petitioner is not entitled for any amount for the work executed without12

¶29

WP(C) NO. 9921 OF 2021

¶30

5

¶31

permission.

¶32

Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently refuse the contention that the site was inspected on 27.12.2019 and direction to conduct soil test issued on the same day. Reference in this regard is made to Exts.P15 to P17 to show that the petitioner was required to conduct the soil test only by letter dated 19.03.2020.

¶33

After having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I find that the factual issues involved require further detailed consideration. The petitioner has produced sufficient evidence to show that the soil test was directed to consider much after the site was handed over, while the learned Government Pleader asserts that the Assistant Executive Engineer had visited the site and directed to conduct soil test immediately after handing over the site. If after the site was handed over, the petitioner had proceeded with the construction and the soil test was directed to be conducted at a later stage, definitely the petitioner will be entitled for the amounts expended till the soil test was

¶34

WP(C) NO. 9921 OF 2021

¶35

6

¶36

directed to be conducted and the work to be kept on hold until the results are received. This is an aspect which needs a further probe. I don’t find any such effort having been taken in Ext.P14.

¶37

Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent permitting the petitioner to file a detailed representation appending all requisite documents including Exts.P9 and P13 and directing the first respondent to consider the representation with specific reference to the petitioner’s contentiion that the direction to conduct soil test was given much after the construction had commenced.

¶38

The petitioner shall be afford an opportunity of hearing by the first respondent and an appropriate decision in the matter taken within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶41

RK

¶42

WP(C) NO. 9921 OF 2021

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9921/2021

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶46

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF` `NO.52/EE/2019`	`THE` `-202`	`AGREEMENT` `0 DATED 25.7.2019.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF` `RESPONDENTS 3`	`THE` `TO`	`LAYOUT APPROVED BY THE` `5.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF` `OF HANDING OV` `CONTRACTOR/PE`	`THE` `ER T` `TITI`	`ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM` `HE SITE TO THE` `ONER DATED 27.12.2019.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF` `SUBMITTED BY` `5TH RESPONDEN`	`THE` `THE` `T AS`	`LETTER DATED 5.5.2020` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE` `SISTANT ENGINEER.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF` `19.5.2020 SUB` `BEFORE THE SU` `BUILDING WORK`	`THE` `MITT` `PERI` `S, T`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `ED BY THE PETITIONER` `NTENDENT ENGINEER, PWD` `HIRUVANANTHAPURAM.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF` `MEASUREMENT B`	`THE` `OOK`	`RELEVANT PAGES OF THE`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`COY OF THE DE` `PURSUANT TO E`	`TAIL` `XT.P`	`BILL PREPARED` `6 MEASUREMENT.`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF` `22.9.2020 SUB` `BEFORE THE 3R`	`THE` `MITT` `D RE`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `ED BY THE PETITIONER` `SPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY OF` `ISSUED BY THE` `TOURISM AND D`	`THE` `MIN` `EVAS`	`LETTER DATED 16.9.2020` `ISTER, CO-OPERATION,` `WOM.`
`EXHIBIT P9(A)`	`TYPED COPY OF`	`EXT`	`.P9.`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY OF` `11.2.2021 IN`	`THE` `WPC`	`JUDGMENT DATED` `NO.30.3.2021.`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`PHOTOS TAKEN` `SITE HANDED O`	`ON 9` `VER`	`.4.2021 OF THE WORK` `TO THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P12`	`TRUE COPY OF` `NO.339/2020/T` `ISSUED BY THE`	`THE` `OURI` `IST`	`G.O.RT` `SM DATED 16.10.2020` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P13`	`TRUE COPY OF` `STANDARD BID`	`THE` `DOCU`	`RELEVANT PORTION OF` `MENT.`
`Exhibit P14`	`TRUE COPY OF` `06.07.2021 TA` `CHIEF ENGINEE`	`THE` `KEN` `R.`	`MINUTES DATED` `IN THE PRESENCE OF THE`
`Exhibit P15`	`TRUE COPY OF` `22.02.2020 IS` `THE EXECUTIVE`	`THE` `SUED` `ENG`	`LETTER DATED` `FROM THE OFFICE OF` `INEER TO THE ASSISTANT`

¶47

WP(C) NO. 9921 OF 2021

¶48

8

¶49

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
Exhibit P15(a)TYPED COPY OF EXHIBIT P15.
Exhibit P16TRUE COPY OF THE DESIGN APPROVED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT REGARDING COMBINED
FOOTING PROVIDE LAYER (A) TO (G)
APPROVED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD
BUILDING, VELLAYAMBALAM SECTION.
Exhibit P17TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
19.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
ENGINEER, PWD BUILDINGS, VELLAYAMBALAM.
Exhibit P18TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED
UNDER RTI ACT DATED 27.03.2021

Prajaraj D. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prajaraj D. 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

P.J.Sunny Vs Kerala Water Authority

S.Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf.B Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Kunji Krishna Pillai

Archana Hospital Vs the District Disaster Management Authority

Sunil Kumar S. Vs State of Kerala