Greenworth Infrastructures Private Limited v. the Secretary to Government PWD

Kerala HC17 Feb 2023WP(C)/32836/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a contractor seeking payment for additional work. Although the claim awaited State Government concurrence, the court directed the Secretary to Government PWD to consider the Chief Engineer's recommendation within one month and release due amounts within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 and accord sanction at earliest, and within one month; if amounts due, release within two months thereafter.

Greenworth Infrastructures Private Limited Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 28TH MAGHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 32836 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

M/S GREENWORTH INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, BUILDING NO. 42/3075, SOUMYA NAGAR, 3RD LANE, ALINCHUVADU, EDAPALLY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM- 682 024, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JACOB M, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. PAUL. BY ADVS.M.PROMODH KUMAR SIBI P. BIJU MAYA CHANDRAN SUMI O.

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PWD, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM- 695 001. 2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ROAD, TRIVANDRUM- 695 001. 3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PWD ROADS, CENTRE CIRCLE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM- 683 101. BY SRI. K. V. MANOJ KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

W.P.(C.) No. 32836/2022 2

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a contractor seeking the following reliefs:-

¶13

“a) To call for the records leading to Ext.P1 to P9 and issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the payment in respect of the work namely gabian structures at the rate of Rs. 5000 per m³ or at the rate of 4825.28 per m³ at LMR rate fixed by the 2^nd respondent as recommended in Ext.P8 and P9.

¶14

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to accord sanction pursuant to Ext.P8 and P9.”

¶15

The issue raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is that petitioner has completed the work and additional work to the satisfaction of the respondents. However, the additional claim raised by the petitioner to the additional work done is not so far released. It is also submitted that petitioner requested for an enhancement of Rs.5000 per m³ for the additional work, however, the authority has granted only Rs.4825 per m³ .

¶16

Anyhow learned Special Government Pleader

¶17

W.P.(C.) No. 32836/2022 3

¶18

Sri. K.V. Manoj Kumar submitted that in respect of the claim raised by the petitioner the Chief Engineer has forwarded the same to the Government for concurrence and it is pending consideration before the State Government.

¶19

In that view of the matter, I think it is only appropriate that the writ petition is disposed of. I place on record that a detailed counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent refuting the claims raised by the petitioner. But in view of the order I propose to pass, I do not think it is necessary to traverse through the entire counter affidavit.

¶20

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.Pramod Kumar and learned Special Government Pleader, Sri. K.V. Manoj Kumar and perusing the pleadings and documents on record, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P9, recommendation forwarded by the Chief Engineer dated 16.07.2022 bearing No.CEPWD/7565/2022-C6(W)-RD, at the earliest, and at any rate, within one month from the

¶21

W.P.(C.) No. 32836/2022 4

¶22

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that if amounts are found to be due to the petitioner, it

¶23

shall be released to the petitioner, at the earliest possible, and at any rate, within two months thereafter.

Sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

DCS/17.02.2023

W.P.(C.) No. 32836/2022 5

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶30

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 23.09.2019. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF THE WORK WHICH ARE THE ITEMS AND COMPONENTS OF THE WORK TO BE EXECUTED AS PER EXT P1. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2021 BY WHICH EXTENSION PERIOD WAS EXTENDED UP TO 31.12.2021. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.04.2022. EXHIBIT P5 THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE EXT P1 AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO VARIATIONS AND ADDITIONS. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REVISED ESTIMATE. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.05.2022. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.06.2022. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.07.2022.

Greenworth Infrastructures Private Limited v. the Secretary to Government PWD

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Greenworth Infrastructures Private Limited v. the Secretary to Government PWD

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

Prakash Chandra.K.P Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs a.Nujum

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sam Koshy

Dr. Devika Vs Dr. Jojomon N a

N. Sankara Pillai Vs Smt. Anupama T.V.

Marian College (Autonomous) Vs Prof. (Dr.) Prakash Kumar B