Disposed

Abdussamad T. v. the Secretary, Kainagari Sudhajala Vitharana Scheme Level Committee

Kerala HC2 Nov 2023WP(C)/12865/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner claimed unpaid dues for pipeline erection work. Respondent objected to a conditional delivery of pipes; Petitioner offered compliance. Court directed Respondent to specify offloading area for pipes, then Petitioner to deliver them, enabling Respondent to process bills within two weeks. Fourth respondent directed to transfer funds.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to specify offloading area within 4 days; Petitioner to deliver pipes within 1 week; 1st respondent to pay bills within 2 weeks; 4th respondent to transfer funds within 10

Abdussamad T. Vs the Secretary, Kainagari Sudhajala… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 12865 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ABDUSSAMAD T. AGED 59 YEARS S/O. SRI ALAVI HAJI, THAMMANNASSERI HOUSE, P.O.MELMURI, MALAPPURAM-676 517

¶8

BY ADVS. JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY ANIL GEORGE DAJISH JOHN HARIKRISHNAN P.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY, KAINAGARI SUDHAJALA VITHARANA SCHEME LEVEL COMMITTEE ADIMALI P.O, IDUKKI-685 561

¶11

2 JALANIDHI,

¶12

REP. BY ITS REGIONAL PROJECT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, IDUKKI, KERALA RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND AGENCY, MATHA ARCADE, THODUPUZHA-685 584

¶13

3 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JALANIDHI, KERALA RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND AGENCY, PTC TOWERS, SS KOVIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

4 ADDL.R4:THE SECRETARY, ADIMALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ADIMALI P.O., IDUKKI-685 561. (ADDLR4 WAS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 1403-2022 IN IA 1/2022)

¶15

BY ADVS. AMAL GEORGE D.KISHORE JOICE GEORGE N.ARJUNAN PILLAI ABDUL JAWAD K., SC, ADIMALY GRAMA PANCHAYAT MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA(K/493/2006) N.RAYNOLD FERNANDEZ(K/211/2000) PARAMESWARAN S.D.(K/000334/2023)

¶16

WP(C) NO. 12865 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 12865 OF 2021

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner, who is stated to have completed the work of erection of pipelines, under a Project executed by the Kerala Rural Water Supply and Agency ('Jalanidhi') - which is monitored and executed by the 1^st respondent, with contribution being made by the 4^th respondent – Adimaly Grama Panchayat - alleges that, even though it has been more than four years and nine months now, eligible bills amounts of Rs.3,504,416/- has not been disbursed to him. He thus prays that respondents be directed to release the amounts covered by Exts.P3 and P6, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶23

Sr. George Thomas, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Amal George – learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, submitted that, as evident from Ext.R1(a), the petitioner is contractually required to surrender 195 metres of 300mm D1K9 pipes, before his claim can be acceded to; and therefore, prayed that he be directed to do so, before Exts.P3 and P6 is ordered to be considered.

¶24

The learned Standing Counsel for the 4^th respondent – Panchayat, Sri.Abdul Jawad, in response, submitted that is

¶25

WP(C) NO. 12865 OF 2021

¶26

¶27

client is willing to remit the amounts to the 1^st respondent, as and when requisition for the same is received from them; and therefore that they have no comment to make on the controversy now projected by the petitioner.

¶28

Sri.D.Kishore, learned counsel appearing for 'Jalanidhi' submitted that his client's contributions have already been given to the Panchayat and that they must remit it, along with their contribution, to the 1^st respondent.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri.Anil George, in reply, submitted that, his client is fully willing to surrender the pipes as required under Ext.R1; and hence that the 1^st respondent can either be permitted to adjust its value from the sums claimed in Exts.P3 and P6 and to disburse the balance; or that they be directed to inform to his client the area, where said pipes can be offloaded, since he is already in possession of the same. He submitted that, either way, 1^st respondent may be directed to complete action based on Exts.P3 and P6, without any avoidable delay.

¶30

The afore narrative makes it evident that, there is now hardly any controversy between the parties with respect to the sums claimed by the petitioner. The only objection raised by

¶31

WP(C) NO. 12865 OF 2021

¶32

¶33

the 1^st respondent is that the pipes required to be surrendered by the petitioner under Ext.R1(a) have not been delivered yet. However, the petitioner says that this is because, even though he is in possession of the same, the 1^st respondent has not shown him any area where it is to be offloaded.

¶34

In the afore circumstances, I order this Writ Petition with the following directions:

¶35

a) The 1^st respondent is directed to immediately inform the petitioner, through a communication to be issued, within a period of four days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the area where the pipes, in terms of Ext.R1(a), are to be offloaded.

¶36

b) On the petitioner receiving the afore requisition, he will immediately, and not later than one week thereafter, deliver the pipes in the area specified, to the satisfaction of the 1^st respondent.

¶37

c) On the afore being done by the petitioner, 1^st respondent will immediately take up Exts.P3 and P6 and ensure

¶38

that eligible amounts thereunder, due to the petitioner, are disbursed to him, within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶39

WP(C) NO. 12865 OF 2021

¶40

¶41

d) In order to facilitate the afore, I direct the 4^th respondent to transfer their share, along with that of 'Jalanidhi' - which is stated to have been already given by them - to the 1^st respondent, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

SD/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶43

lsn

¶44

WP(C) NO. 12865 OF 2021

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12865/2021

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶48

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 19.02.2016 SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH BID NO. KRWSA/RPMU/IDKI/ADMLY/LWSS/KNRI/PKG1/2015.

¶49

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.11.2019. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST AND PART BILL DATED 12.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND AND PART BILL DATED 31.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD AND PART BILL DATED 17.05. ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶50

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.11.2019.

¶51

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05.12.2019.

¶52

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.01.2020.

¶53

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶54

Exhibit R1(A) True photocopy of the relevant page of the BoQ signed by the parties

¶55

Exhibit R1(B) True photocopy of the letter dated 29.12.2022 sent by the Project Commissioner sent to the Secretary Adimali Grama Panchayath Exhibit R1(C) True photocopy of theletter dated 09.10.2023 sent by the Project Commissioner to the 1st respondent

¶56

WP(C) NO. 12865 OF 2021

¶57

¶58

Exhibit R1(D) True photocopy of the letter dated 12.10.2023 sent by the 1st respondent to the petitioner

¶59

TRUE COPY

¶60

P.A TO JUDGE

¶61

LSN

Abdussamad T. v. the Secretary, Kainagari Sudhajala Vitharana Scheme Level Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdussamad T. v. the Secretary, Kainagari Sudhajala Vitharana Scheme Level Committee

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

Perfect Engineers and Contractors, Vs State of Kerala

Asif Azad Vs Haja Maheen

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs the Chief Controller of Explosives

Kerala Hindu Cheramar Sangham Vs the District Registrar (General)

M/S K v Joseph and Sons Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

Poovar Muslim Jama-Ath Committee Vs State of Kerala