Disposed

Deepak S.V v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Kerala HC11 Sept 2023WP(C)/10119/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding a construction contract dispute, the High Court directed the respondents to process an extension application, conduct an inspection of alleged additional works in the petitioner's presence, and disburse eligible sums within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Directions to process extension application, conduct inspection, and disburse dues within one and four months respectively.

Deepak S.V Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 20TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 10119 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DEEPAK S.V., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O LATE M.SASIDHARAN, RESIDING AT TC 42/1380 (1), 'PRANAVAM', ASAN NAGAR ANRA - 96 (A), MUTTATHARA, VALLAKKADAVU PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695008

¶8

BY ADV R.HARISHANKAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION SUB DIVISION, OBSERVATORY HILLS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

¶11

2 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION SECTION, OBSERVATORY HILLS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

¶12

SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE – SPL.G.P.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 10119 OF 2023

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondents to complete certain works, but it appears that it was not concluded within time; and he alleges that certain additional works were also burdened upon him. He says that he, therefore, applied for extension of the period of contract and for payment towards the additional works; but that it has not been acceded to. He thus prays that the respondents be directed to pay him the amounts as per Ext.P3 agreement, along with the sums incurred for the execution of additional works, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶18

Sri.R.Harishankar – learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that, even though his client had diligently performed his duties under the contract, certain additional works were thrust upon him to be completed; for which extensions of time were required. He asserted that though his client had preferred Exts.P6 to P8 requests for the afore purposes, the same has not been acceded to; and therefore, that he has been constrained to approach this Court through this writ petition.

¶19

Sri.Sujith Mathew Jose – learned Special Government Pleader, however, submitted that this is not a case where the

¶20

WP(C) NO. 10119 OF 2023

¶21

¶22

respondents have acted contrary to the statutory obligations, but where the petitioner has willfully refused to approach them for extension of the contract and to cooperate with the inspection work to verify whether any additional works had been done by him, as asserted. He submitted that if the petitioner submits a proper application for extension of the term of the contract in the format produced along with Ext.R1(a), the same can be considered and an additional inspection can also be done, provided he is willing to cooperate with the same.

¶23

When I consider the afore rival submissions, it is limpid that the controversy between the parties is in a very small compass. For the first, the parties are at dissonance as to whether the petitioner had applied for extension of the contract in the format as mentioned as Ext.R1(a); and for the second, the question is whether the petitioner had undertaken any additional works, for which he is entitled to extra payment.

¶24

It is thus obvious that if the petitioner is to make an application for extension of the contract as per the format in Ext.R1(a), then all his contentions will have to be taken note of by the competent Authorities, particularly because the

¶25

WP(C) NO. 10119 OF 2023

¶26

¶27

question whether the additional works have been done or otherwise, is solely in the realm of facts, which can only be resolved through a proper inspection in his presence.

¶28

In the afore circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

¶29

(a) I leave liberty to the petitioner to prefer an application for extension of the contract, in the format as mentioned in Ext.R1(a), before the second respondent - Assistant Engineer; and if this is done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be processed by the said Authority and forwarded to the first respondent - Assistant Executive Engineer, for further action, without any avoidable delay.

¶30

(b) In the meantime and axiomatic to the afore directions, the competent among the respondents will conduct an inspection of the additional works, alleged to have been undertaken by the petitioner, in his presence; for which he will be properly notified through a notice through registered post AD in the address shown in this writ petition. The said inspection shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the report of the same presented before the second

¶31

WP(C) NO. 10119 OF 2023

¶32

¶33

respondent, for him to complete the exercise in direction (a) above.

¶34

(c) After the application of the petitioner is considered in terms of the afore directions, all eligible amounts found due to him, if any, shall be disbursed to him within a period of four months thereafter.

¶35

I make it clear that as far as the works which are already completed as per the original contract and over which there is no dispute, the eligible sums against the same shall be disbursed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and that it would not require the respondents to await completion of action as per the afore directions for such purpose.

¶36

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

stu

¶39

WP(C) NO. 10119 OF 2023

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10119/2023

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶43

Exhibit	P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23-09-2020 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER
Exhibit	P2 TRUE COPY OF ACCEPTED SCHEDULE APPENDED TO EXHIBIT P1
Exhibit	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO: 35/AEE- MI/2020-21 DATED 05-10-2020
Exhibit	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10-03-2022 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT INTIMATING COMPLETION OF THE WORKS
Exhibit	P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21-07-2022 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit	P6 TRUE COPY OF PROFORMA TO ACCOMPANY RECOMMENDATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME OF COMPLETION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER FOR 1ST EXTENSION UPTO 12-08-2021
Exhibit	P7 TRUE COPY OF PROFORMA TO ACCOMPANY RECOMMENDATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME OF COMPLETION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER FOR 2ND EXTENSION UPTO 07-01-2022
Exhibit	P8 TRUE COPY OF PROFORMA TO ACCOMPANY RECOMMENDATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME OF COMPLETION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER FOR 2ND EXTENSION UPTO 12-04-2022
Exhibit	P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 27-05-2022 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO RESPONDENTS
Exhibit	P10 TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DATED 23-07-2022 SENT TO THE RESPONDENTS
Exhibit	P11 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 05-09-2022 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER'S COUNSEL
Exhibit	P12 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 25-07-2022 ISSUED

¶44

WP(C) NO. 10119 OF 2023

¶45

¶46

BY PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT

¶47

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 01-08-2022 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER

¶48

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 29-08-2022 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER

¶49

Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 02-09-2022 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT

¶50

Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 03-09-2022 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER

¶51

Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 12-09-2022 ISSUE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER

¶52

Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 0803-2023 ISSUED BY DR. SULFIYA S. KARIM, MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVERNMENT SIDDHA HOSPITAL, VALLAKKADAVU

¶53

Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28-10-2022 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER

¶54

Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10-03-2023 TO RESPONDENTS

¶55

Exhibit P21 PHOTOGRAPH TO SHOW THE NAMEBOARD PLACEMENT ON THE STRUCTURE

¶56

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶57

Exhibit R1(a) True copy of proforma

¶58

Exhibit R1(b) True copy of letter dated 26.10.2022 Exhibit R1(c) True copy of letter dated 15.03.2023 Exhibit R1(d) True copy of letter dated 14.03.2023 Exhibit R1(d) True copy of the photograph of name board

Deepak S.V v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak S.V v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

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

Konuparamban Traders Vs the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

M/S. Panos Apparel Industries Vs State Bank of India

Jayesh Vs K.N. Prakashan

A. Gopalan Nair, Vs the Union of India

Radhakrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Anandan Vs the District Collector