Allowed

Sharif. A.M v. the Kerala Institution of Local Administration ( Kila)

Kerala HC4 Dec 2023WP(C)/40363/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner contractor challenged coercive proceedings (Ext.P12) initiated by respondents without considering his pending representation (Ext.P11). Petitioner prayed for suspension of Ext.P12 and direction to dispose Ext.P11. Justices upheld the plea, directing disposal within two months.

What did the court decide?

This writ petition is allowed; respondents to dispose Ext.P11 within two months; Ext.P12 proceedings deferred until Ext.P11 disposed.

Sharif. A.M Vs the Kerala Institution of… — 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 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 40363 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHARIF. A.M AGED 29 YEARS, S/O M ABDUL KHADER, MASTHIKUNDU HOUSE, MULIYAR P O, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671542 BY ADVS. V.PREMCHAND HALIYA T.P. MAHADEV M.J.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE KERALA INSTITUTION OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION (KILA), KILA REGIONAL CENTRE, KUMARAPURAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695011 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER( TECHNICAL) 2 THE CHIEF MANAGER ( TECHNICAL), THE KERALA INSTITUTION OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION (KILA), KILA REGIONAL CENTRE, KUMARAPURAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695011 3 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, KARINTHALAM PANCHAYATH, KINANOOR, KARINTHALAM P O, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671314 BY ADV. SRI V A MUHAMMED-SC

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

W.P.(C).No.40363 of 2023

¶12

: 2 :

¶13

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶14

=========================

¶15

W.P.(C).No. 40363 of 2023

¶16

========================== Dated this the 4^th day of December, 2023

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner impugns Ext.P12 proceedings issued by the respondents and asserts that it is illegal and unlawful, particularly when Ext.P11 representation of his, wherein he has detailed all his claims and grievances, are still pending before the respondents. He thus prays that competent among respondents be directed to take up Ext.P11 and dispose of the same; and that until such time, Ext.P12 be directed not to be enforced.

¶19

Sri.V.Premchand – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client is a contractor and that he had entered into an agreement with the respondents; and that, on account of various reasons what cannot be attributed to him, there have been certain issues with respect to execution of the same. He says that his client has, therefore, preferred Ext.P11 representation before the respondents, assuring that the work will be restarted; but that it has not even been considered, but

¶20

W.P.(C).No.40363 of 2023

¶21

: 3 :

¶22

Ext.P12 coercive proceedings nevertheless initiated. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P12 be quashed and Ext.P11 be directed to be taken up and disposed of by the respondents within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶23

Sri.V.A.Muhammed – learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, in response, submitted that, if the petitioner only requires Ext.P11 to be taken up and disposed of by the competent among respondents, there does not appear to be any legal impediment for them in doing so; but prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations in his favour and leave it to the said respondent to take an appropriate decision thereon, as per law.

¶24

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and direct the competent among respondents to take up Ext.P11 representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same, after affording him an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶25

Until such time as the afore is done and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner, all further action pursuant to

¶26

W.P.(C).No.40363 of 2023

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

Ext.P12 will stand deferred; and it is clarified that any further action will be only as per the decision to be taken in terms of the

¶29

afore directions.

¶30

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶31

anm

¶32

W.P.(C).No.40363 of 2023

¶33

: 5 :

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40363/2023

¶35

PETITIONER EXH Exhibit-P1	IBITS A TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE DATED 19.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER KILA
Exhibit-P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 08.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, PERIYA
Exhibit-P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 23.05.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KARINDALAM PANCHAYATH
Exhibit-P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE OBSERVATION MEMO DATED 13.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF PROJECT EXAMINER, KERALA INFRASTRUCTURE FUND BOARD
Exhibit-P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.07.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEAD OF DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, PERIYA
Exhibit-P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 27.07.2023 BEFORE THE CHIEF PROJECT EXAMINER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11.09.2023 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25.10.2023 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPRESENTATION DATED 07.11.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23.11.2023 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶36

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

Sharif. A.M v. the Kerala Institution of Local Administration ( Kila)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharif. A.M v. the Kerala Institution of Local Administration ( Kila)

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

Daya, Vs the Branch Manager

M/S. Deens Group Vs State of Kerala

Varkey.a.P.@Varkey Philipose, Vs State of Kerala

M/S Wellstick Polymers Vs Director of Industries & Commerce

Kannan A.R Vs the Head of the Grievance Cell

G.v.Davis Vs the Superintending Engineer