Allowed

Anil Kumar E.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Nov 2023WP(C)/1568/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, contractors for the Kerala Water Authority (KWA), approached the Court for direction to pay bills for completed works. The KWA refused payment citing withdrawal of administrative sanction by the District Collector. The Court directed KWA to pay the bills within two months, permitting it to later recover funds from the Government.

What did the court decide?

The KWA directed to pay amounts under Exts.P2 to P20 Bills to the petitioners within two months of the judgment date.

Anil Kumar E.P Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1568 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 ANIL KUMAR E.P ELLATHUCHIRA, KOKKOTHAMANGALAM P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 527

¶8

2 E.K.SAHADEVAN, CHITTECHIRAYIL, KURUPPAMKULANGARA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 539

¶9

3 JOSEPH T, PADINJAREKANNAMTHARA, KOKKOTHAMANGALAM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 527

¶10

4 DHANESH XAVIER, THACHUTHARA, EZHUPUNNA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 548

¶11

5 P.G.STEPHEN, PALLIPARAMBIL, ARTHUNKAL P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 530

¶12

6 FRANCIS XAVIER, POOTHARA HOUSE, PALLITHODU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 540

¶13

7 R. THYAGARAJAN, VADAKKEVELY, MUHAMMA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 525 BY ADVS. JOMY GEORGE R.PADMARAJ M.J.BENNY DEEPAK MOHAN R.AJITH KUMAR [V.K.EDOM] CHITRA N. DAS RISHAB S.

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED TY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶16

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024.

¶17

WP(C) NO. 1568 OF 2022 2

¶18

3 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H. DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶19

4 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 524.

¶20

5* ADDL.R5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA *[ADDL.R5 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/10/2022 IN WP(C) 1568/2022] BY ADV V.V.JOSHI

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C) NO. 1568 OF 2022 3

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioners say that they are contractors working for the Kerala Water Authority (‘KWA’ for short) and that they have taken up several works in the years 2014 to 2016, which they have completed without leaving any scope for objections or dispute. They say that, however, when they presented Exts.P2 to P20 Bills for payment before the ‘KWA’, it has been refused to be acceded to, citing certain untenable reasons; and thus they have been constrained to approach this Court through this writ petition.

¶25

Sri.Rishab S. - learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that not only were his clients given the contract, which they completed, but they were also favoured with extensions wherever it was required; and the said works were supervised by the competent Authority of the ‘KWA’ on a regular basis. He submitted that, therefore, no reason can now be impelled by the said Authority in refusing to pay the Bills covered by Exts.P2 to P20; and thus prayed that they be directed to do so, alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum, from the date on which it became due, until it is paid.

¶26

The learned Standing Counsel for the ‘KWA’ – Sri.V.V.Joshi, in response, however, submitted that it is true that the works were

¶27

WP(C) NO. 1568 OF 2022 4

¶28

entrusted with the petitioners and contracts entered into, but that subsequently, the Administrative Sanction issued by the District Collector was withdrawn. He submitted that the Officers of the ‘KWA’ were not aware of such withdrawal of Sanction; and therefore, that the petitioners were asked to continue, which were also properly supervised, leading to it being completed by the petitioners. He submitted that, however, since the Administrative Sanction now stands withdrawn, it would not be possible for his client to effect payment because, it would then amount to violation of the fiscal stipulations.

¶29

I have examined the pleadings on record, particularly the counter affidavit filed by the ‘KWA’. It is asserted therein that District Collector is a necessary party to this lis because, said Authority had cancelled the Administrative Sanction to the works, after the contracts had been entered into with the petitioners. However, pertinently, the ‘KWA’ admits unequivocally that petitioners had completed the works, which were supervised by the competent Officials of the ‘KWA’ and that no objections have been raised until now. They, however, take the stand that since the Administrative Sanction had been cancelled in between, it would not be now possible to honour Exts.P2 to P20 Bills.

¶30

I am afraid that this Court cannot find favour with the afore submissions of the ‘KWA’ because, when they themselves admits that

¶31

WP(C) NO. 1568 OF 2022 5

¶32

petitioners completed their works under valid contracts, which were supervised by their competent Officials, leading to completion certificates having also been issued, one fails to fathom how they can now refuse to pay Exts.P2 to P20 Bills. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that, the ‘KWA’ was not aware of the cancellation of Administrative Sanction by the District Collector – which cannot be on account of any fault that can be attributed to the petitioners – their responsibility to make payment for works completed under their supervision and their command cannot be resiled by them. Obviously, it is for them to approach the competent Authority and rectify the problem, so that necessary payments can be effected to the petitioners without any avoidable delay.

¶33

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

¶34

(a) The ‘KWA’ is permitted to escalate the issue to the competent Authority of the Government and to obtain resolution of the same as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

(b) Depending upon the afore and notwithstanding the Sanction not being renewed – even if it is to happen so – the ‘KWA’ will pay the

¶36

WP(C) NO. 1568 OF 2022 6

¶37

amounts under Exts.P2 to P20 Bills to the petitioners within a period of two months thereafter. In such event, the ‘KWA’ will have full liberty to approach the Government thereafter to recover the money from the competent Requisitioning Authority, for which purpose, all liberties are left open.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶40

MC/7.11

¶41

WP(C) NO. 1568 OF 2022 7

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1568/2022

¶43

`PETITIO` `Exhibit`	`NER EXHIB` `P1`	`ITS` `TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE DATED` `21.5.2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO` `THE 1ST PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE` `DATED 1.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE` `DATED 1.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE` `DATED 1.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE` `DATED 1.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE` `DATED 1.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE` `DATED 1.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE` `DATED 4.4.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE` `DATED 1.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE` `DATED 1.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE` `DATED 1.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE` `DATED 1.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE` `DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO` `THE 5TH PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P14`	`TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE` `DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO` `THE 6TH PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P15`	`TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE`

¶44

WP(C) NO. 1568 OF 2022 8

¶45

	`DATED NIL ISSUED` `THE 6TH PETITIONE`	`BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO` `R`
`Exhibit`	`P16` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED NIL ISSUED` `THE 6TH PETITIONE`	`VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE` `BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO` `R`
`Exhibit`	`P17` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 1.8.2016 IS` `RESPONDENT TO THE`	`VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE` `SUED BY THE 4TH` `7TH PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P18` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED NIL ISSUED` `THE 7TH PETITIONE`	`VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE` `BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO` `R`
`Exhibit`	`P19` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 1.8.2016 IS` `RESPONDENT TO THE`	`VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE` `SUED BY THE 4TH` `7TH PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P20` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED NIL ISSUED` `THE 7TH PETITIONE`	`VOUCHER CUM BILL MODULE` `BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO` `R`

Anil Kumar E.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar E.P 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

Nusrath N Vs Under Secretary

Sudheesh P Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh T.R Vs State of Kerala

Faizal .K.J Vs Bank of Baroda

Muthanatt Thomas Vs the Union of India

Binoj.N.a., Vs Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.