Allowed

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

Kerala HC2 Nov 2023WP(C)/3966/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought return of security deposit after tender rejection. Court held factual questions require hearing. Ordered 3rd respondent to decide within one month and disburse amount with interest within two weeks thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Directed 3rd respondent to hear petitioner within one month, decide on return of security deposit, and disburse due amounts within two weeks with 7% interest if payment is delayed.

M/S K v Joseph and Sons Private Limited Vs State of Kerala — Consumer Protection | 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 WP(C) NO. 3966 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

M/S K V JOSEPH AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED AGED 56 YEARS 565, KURIEKAL BUILDING, EDAPPALLY P.O, KOCHI - 24, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR K J PAUL, PIN - 682024

¶7

BY ADVS. JOMY GEORGE R.PADMARAJ R.AJITH KUMAR [V.K.EDOM] CHITRA N. DAS RISHAB S. FATHIMA AFEEDA P. RONA ANN SIBY

¶8

RESPONDENS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶11

3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, GROUND FLOOR, BSNL OFFICE BUILDING AT CGM (O), DOORSANCHAR BHAVAN, PMG JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695033

¶12

SRI. K.V.MANOJ KUMAR

¶13

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

¶14

WP(C) NO. 3966 OF 2023

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner says that even though he had quoted his bid with a time validity of 120 days, the respondents refused to issue a Work Order, but requested him to reduce the rate for which he was not prepared. He says that, therefore, there is no omission attributable to him, in the contract not being awarded; and therefore, that he is now entitled to the Security Deposit, which had been earlier furnished, to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs. He, therefore, prayed that 3^rd respondent be directed to release the said Security Deposit to him, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶18

In response to the afore submissions of Sri. R Padmaraj - learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent – Sri.K.V.Manoj Kumar, submitted that he does not have specific instructions as to why the Security Deposit of the petitioner has not been returned; but added that this could be for valid reasons. He submitted that, therefore, unless the competent among the 3^rd respondent investigates into the matter and takes a final decision, the petitioner cannot seek that the Security Deposit be returned to him. He added that, he is

¶19

WP(C) NO. 3966 OF 2023

¶20

¶21

making this submission because, the petitioner himself admits that, though he had bid for the work, he had not taken up the contract nor did he complete it, but that the reasons stated by him are not accurate. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

¶22

When I consider and evaluate the afore rival submissions, it is evident that the transaction in question relates to the year 2019. Why the contract was not entered into with the petitioner, and why his Security Deposit is still retained - if it is - by the 3^rd respondent, are issues in the factual realm, into which this Court cannot enter at the first instance, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am, therefore, of the firm view that 3^rd respondent must hear the petitioner and take a final decision on his request for return of Security Deposit, without any avoidable delay.

¶23

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and direct the 3^rd respondent to immediately hear the petitioner, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and take a decision on his request for return of the security deposit; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not

¶24

WP(C) NO. 3966 OF 2023

¶25

¶26

later than two weeks thereafter.

¶27

Needless to say, if any amounts are found due to the petitioner in terms of the afore directions, same shall be disbursed to him within a period of one month thereafter, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date on which it was due, until it is paid.

¶28

Needless to say, in the event eligible amounts are paid

¶29

within the afore time frame, the liberty of the petitioner, to invoke other alternative remedies for the interest thereon, is left open.

¶30

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶31

lsn

¶32

WP(C) NO. 3966 OF 2023

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3966/2023

¶35

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶36

Exhibit -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER DATED 30.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 19.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit - P3 TRUE COPY OF TENDER DETAILS ISSUED BY ETENDERING SYSTEM GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED 16.11.2022 Exhibit -P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 13.05.2020 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit -P5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 06.11.2020 SENT BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit - P6 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER REQUESTING THE RELEASE OF THE BID SECURITY AMOUNT DATED 08.03.2021 Exhibit -P7 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 20.01.2022 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT REQUESTING TO RELEASE THE BID SECURITY AMOUNT Exhibit -P8 TRUE COPY OF TENDER SUMMARY REPORT DATED 15.07.2022

¶37

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶38

TRUE COPY

¶39

P.A TO JUDGE

¶40

LSN

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S K v. Joseph and Sons Private Limited 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

Statutes considered

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)

Poovar Muslim Jama-Ath Committee Vs State of Kerala

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