Disposed

Antech Construction Company v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jan 2023WP(C)/2114/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions to consider its representation (Exhibit P28) regarding termination of contract at risk and cost of petitioner. Court directed Project Director (2nd respondent) to consider representation within two weeks after providing opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed Project Director to consider Exhibit P28 within two weeks after providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

Antech Construction Company Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.2114 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

MONDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 3RD MAGHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 2114 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

ANTECH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OMBALAYIL HOUSE, KOLENCHERRY P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682311 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHRI. ANISH MARKOSE, PIN - 682311 BY ADVS. SANTHOSH MATHEW ARUN THOMAS KARTHIKA MARIA ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS ABI BENNY AREECKAL KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW SANITA SABU VARGHESE MANASA BENNY GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, ROOM NO. 264, 2ND FLOOR SOUTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001, PIN - 695001 2 PROJECT DIRECTOR, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD-PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, GROUND FLOOR, BSNL OFFICE BUILDING, CGM(O) DOORSANCHAR BHAVAN, PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695033, PIN - 695033 3 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KRFB-PMU, ERNAKULAM-THRISSUR 2ND FLOOR, PWD COMPLEX, MAMANGALAM, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM - 682024 PIN - 682024 4 THE TEAM LEADER, PWD, KRFB-PMU NORTH CIRCLE K.K.K. GREEN TOWER, THIRD FLOOR, OPP. KUTHIRAVATTOM HOSPITAL, S.K. POTTAKKAD ROAD,

¶11

W.P.(C) No.2114 of 2023

¶12

¶13

KOZHIKODE - 673016 PIN – 673016

¶14

5 KERALA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND BOARD 2ND FLOOR, FELICITY SQUARE, MG ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695001 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶15

PIN - 695001

¶16

6 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND BOARD 2ND FLOOR, FELICITY SQUARE, MG ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA PIN - 695001

¶17

R1- Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George,Government Pleader R2 – Sri.K.V.Manoj Kumar, Standing Counsel

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C) No.2114 of 2023

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Dated this the 23^rd day of January, 2023

¶23

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

¶24

(i) Direct the 2^nd and 6^th respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext. P28 representation of the Petitioner in a time bound manner;

¶25

(ii) Declare that the Ext. P3 agreement has been rendered void following Ext. P28 to the extent that the Petitioner is required to carry out any further work;

¶26

(iii) Declare that the Respondents cannot impose risk and cost on the Petitioner until a competent forum has made a determination as to whether or not the Petitioner has committed a default under the Ext. P3 agreement;

¶27

(iv)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents not to take any coercive or adverse action Including Invoking the performance securities provided by the Petitioner as performance securities, until a competent forum has made a determination as to whether or not the Petitioner has committed a default under the Ext. P3 agreement;

¶28

(v) Dispense with translation of vernacular documents; and

¶29

(vi) Grant such other reliefs which are just and necessary in the interest

¶30

W.P.(C) No.2114 of 2023

¶31

¶32

of justice.

¶33

Even though various contentions are raised, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if a direction is issued to consider Exhibit P28 representation by the Project Director, Kerala Road Fund Board-Project Management Unit, Thiruvananthapuram – the 2^nd respondent, petitioner would be satisfied.

¶34

The subject issue rates to termination of contract at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader submitted that with respect to the termination of contract, a hearing was conducted earlier, however, if Exhibit P28 representation is received by the Project Director, this Court may direct the Project Director to consider Exhibit P28 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶35

After having heard, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Santhosh Mathew and learned Standing Counsel Sri. K. V. Manoj Kumar for the Kerala Road Fund Board-Project Management Unit, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Project Manager – the 2^nd respondent, to consider Exhibit P28, in accordance with law, at the earliest, and at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶36

Even though, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that a stay may be granted against invocation of the bank guarantee, learned standing counsel for the

¶37

W.P.(C) No.2114 of 2023

¶38

¶39

Board submitted that no decision is taken so far to terminate the contract and only

¶40

on termination, the bank guarantee will be invoked.

This is recorded.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

smv

W.P.(C) No.2114 of 2023

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2114/2023

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF (NIT) FOR THE W RESPONDENT DATE	THE NOTICE INVITING TENDERS ORK ISSUED BY THE 2ND D 13.12.2019
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF DATED 28.04.202	THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE (LOA) 0
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED	RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE 05.06.2020
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF 2ND RESPONDENT	THE PETITIONER'S LETTER TO THE DATED 05.09.2020
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF 3RD RESPONDENT	THE PETITIONER'S LETTER TO THE DATED 05.07.2021
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF 3RD RESPONDENT	THE PETITIONER'S LETTER TO THE DATED 13.07.2021
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF 3RD RESPONDENT	THE PETITIONER'S LETTER TO THE DATED 06.08.2021
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF REGIONAL ENGINE 04.09.2021	THE PETITIONER'S LETTER TO THE ER OF RITES LTD., DATED
Exhibit P9	A TRUE COPY OF TO THE PMC DATE	THE PETITIONER'S FIRST LETTER D 25.09.2021
Exhibit P10	A TRUE COPY OF TO THE PMC DATE	THE PETITIONER'S SECOND LETTER D 25.09.2021
Exhibit P11	A TRUE COPY OF 3RD RESPONDENT TIME OF COMPLET	THE PETITIONER'S LETTER TO THE REQUESTING EXTENSION OF THE ION
Exhibit P12	A TRUE COMMUNIC RECOMMENDATION COMPLETION DATE	ATION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT'S FOR EXTENDING THE TERM OF D 26.11.2021
Exhibit P13	A TRUE COPY OF 3RD RESPONDENT	THE PETITIONER'S LETTER TO THE DATED 05.04.2022
Exhibit P14	A TRUE COPY OF DATED 04.07.202	THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S LETTER 2
Exhibit P15	A TRUE COPY OF DATED 11.08.202	THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S LETTER 2
Exhibit P16	A TRUE COPY OF DATED 19.09.202	THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S LETTER 2
Exhibit P17	A TRUE COPY OF EXT. P16 DATED	THE PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO 21.09.2022
Exhibit P18	A TRUE COPY OF	THE FIRST NOTICE OF

¶50

W.P.(C) No.2114 of 2023

¶51

¶52

TERMINATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.10.2022 Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBSERVATION MEMO DATED 20.10.2022 Exhibit P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO EXT. P18 DATED 21.10.2022 Exhibit P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S FINAL NOTICE PRIOR TO WORK TERMINATION DATED 05.12.2022 Exhibit P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE PMC DATED 05.12.2022 Exhibit P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPLY TO EXHIBIT P22 DATED 12.12.2022 Exhibit P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPLY TO EXT. P21 DATED 14.12.2022 Exhibit P25 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.12.2022 Exhibit P26 A TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S LETTER DATED 20.12.2022 Exhibit P27 A TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S LETTER TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18.01.2023 Exhibit P28 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DATED 19.01.2023 ALONG WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHS AS ON DATE ENCLOSED THEREWITH

Antech Construction Company v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antech Construction Company 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

Jose Sanal, Vs the District Collector

Anitha Baiju, Vs the District Collector

Abdul Vahid Vs the Principal, Arts and Science College

Aurea Biolabs (P) Ltd. Vs National Biodiversity Authority

Alex Vrghese Vs Union of India

Akhil J Jacob Vs the Deputy Tahsildar