Allowed

Perfect Engineers and Contractors, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Nov 2023WP(C)/3652/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a writ petition, set aside PWD orders rejecting the petitioner's claim for construction incentives. The Court held that since the petitioner's work was completed before circulars extending the application deadline were issued, they were not guilty of the procedural time-bar. A direction for reconsideration was granted.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Exts.P11 and P12; directed competent Authority to reconsider claim under P9/P10 Circulars within three months; directed disbursement of eligible incentive within two months thereafter.

Perfect Engineers and Contractors, Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶4

WP(C) NO. 3652 OF 2020

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

M/S PERFECT ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, M.SAJEEVAN,
EJ 39/1198/PMC, ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD-678014.

¶7

BY ADVS.
G.SIVASANKAR
SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
SRI.G.P.SHINOD

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
PWD DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶10

2CHIEF ENGINEER(BUILDINGS),
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶11

3SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
O/O.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
BUILDINGS NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE-673020.

¶12

4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BUILDINGS DIVISION, PALAKKAD-678014.

¶13

SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR, SR.G.P.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 3652 OF 2020

¶16

-2-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner, which is stated to be a Firm
registered under Section 58(i) of the Indian
Partnership Act, 1932, says that they have
completed construction of ‘Boys’ and ‘Girls
Hostels’ under a contract awarded to them by the
3rd respondent – Superintending Engineer of the
Public Works Department(PWD); and therefore,
that they are entitled to the incentive which
has been ordered through Exts.P9 and P10
Circulars.

¶19

2.The petitioner alleges that, however,

¶20

the aforesaid incentive has been rejected by the
PWD, through Exts.P11 and P12, merely saying
that application for such had not been made
within time; and thus pray that said orders be
set aside, and the Authorities be directed to
disburse the eligible incentive to them, within
a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶21

WP(C) NO. 3652 OF 2020

¶22

-3-

¶23

3. Smt.Gayathri S. - learned counsel for

¶24

the petitioner, vehemently argued against
Exts.P11 and P12, saying that, even though it is
stated therein that ‘Report of Completion’ had
not been preferred within time, it has been so
indited without adverting to Exts.P9 and P10
Circulars, which were issued on 26.06.2018 and
07.05.2019. She pointed out that her client had
completed the work in the year 2017; while,
Exts.P9 and P10 came after that, with the second
of them extending the time frame for making
application for a period of 10 days from the
date of completion of the construction.

¶25

4.Smt.Gayathri S., then affirmed that her

¶26

client had preferred the application for
incentive on 07.08.2019, which is immediately
after they became aware of Exts.P9 and P10
Circulars; and hence that it could not have been
rejected through Exts.P11 and P12, saying that

¶27

WP(C) NO. 3652 OF 2020

¶28

it was not made within the time frame mentioned

¶29

in Ext.P10. She argued that this has been done
without proper application of mind because, as
per Ext.P10, the request for incentive ought to
have been made within 10 days of completion of
the construction; but that, in the case at hand,
the construction was completed on 03.04.2017.
She thus prayed that Exts.P11 and P12 be set
aside and the competent Authority be directed to
reconsider her client's application for
incentive, within a time frame to be fixed by
this Court.

¶30

5.Sri.K.V.Manoj Kumar – learned Senior
Government Pleader, in response, submitted that
Exts.P11 and P12 are irreproachable because they
have gone strictly by the stipulations in Ext.P9
Circular, modified by Ext.P10 Circular. He
argued that, when the Circulars mandate that an
application for incentive should be made within

¶31

WP(C) NO. 3652 OF 2020

¶32

-5-

¶33

a period of 10 days from the date of completion
of the construction, there can be no relaxation
in any individual cases. He thus prayed that

¶34

this writ petition be dismissed.

¶35

6.I am afraid that I cannot find favour

¶36

with the afore submissions of the learned Senior
Government Pleader because, as rightly argued by

¶37

Smt.Gayathri S., Ext.P10 mandates that an
application for incentive should be made within
a period of 10 days of completion of the work.
In this case, completion of the work was,
admittedly, in April, 2017; while Exts.P9 and
P10 Circulars came a year and two months
thereafter. Obviously, therefore, the petitioner
cannot be found fault with not having complied
with the time frame in Ext.P10 for seeking an
incentive with respect to a work that was
completed even prior to issuance of Exts.P9 and
P10.

¶38

WP(C) NO. 3652 OF 2020

¶39

-6-

¶40

In the afore circumstances, I order this

¶41

writ petition and set aside Exts.P11 and P12;

¶42

with a consequential direction to the competent

¶43

Authority of the PWD to reconsider the claim of

¶44

the petitioner in terms of Exts.P9 and P10
Circulars and after affording them an
opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in
an appropriate order and necessary action
thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but
not later than three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

I make it clear that, if incentive is found
eligible to the petitioner through the afore
exercise, then it shall be disbursed to them
within a period of two months thereafter.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

akv

¶50

WP(C) NO. 3652 OF 2020

¶51

-7-

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3652/2020

¶53

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶54

EXHIBIT P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE
NO.DB1/TN/155/2014-15 DATED 09.10.2014
WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF
GIRLS HOSTEL ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE
NO.DB1/TN/153/2014-15 DATED 09.10.2014
WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF
GIRLS HOSTEL ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
FORMS DATED 03.02.2015 ISSUED BY THE
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
EXHIBIT P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
FORMS 07.04.2015 ISSUED BY THE
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
EXHIBIT P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATED
24.03.2015 ALON WITH AGREEMENT
NO.SE(K)49/2014-2015 DATED 24.03.2015
EXHIBIT P6THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.DB6/31682014 DATED 12.05.2015 ALONG
WITH AGREEMENT NOSE(K) 10 OF 2015-2016
DATED 12.05.2015
EXHIBIT P7THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLETION OF THE WORK DATED
16.05.2019 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
GIRLS HOSTEL OF GOVERNMENT MEDICAL
COLLEGE, PALAKKAD

¶55

WP(C) NO. 3652 OF 2020

¶56

-8-

¶57

EXHIBIT P8THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLETION OF THE WORK DATED
16.05.2019 WITH RESPECT OF BOYS HOSTEL
OF GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE,
PALAKKAD
EXHIBIT P9THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.CE/BL/HC/GL/A1/142/2018 DATED
26.06.2018
EXHIBIT P10THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.CE/BL/HC/GL/A1/142/2018 DATED
07.05.2019
EXHIBIT P11THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.CE/BL/PLKD/5996/2014 DATED
27.11.2019
EXHIBIT P12THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.CE/BL/PLKD/6000/2014 DATED
27.11.2019

Perfect Engineers and Contractors, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Perfect Engineers and Contractors, 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

Aswin Ashokan Vs Union of India

Jinu James Kandathil Vs the Chief Engineer

Jinu James Kandathil Vs the Superintending Engineer

Asif Azad Vs Haja Maheen

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs the Chief Controller of Explosives

Dr. Giridas P.B., Vs Animal Welfare Board of India