Disposed

A.Kishore v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2023WP(C)/9670/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, a government contractor sought the release of Performance Security and payment of final bill amounts after contract termination. The court directed the respondent Project Director to hear the petitioner, release security if the guarantee period expired, and disburse final bill amounts within specified timelines, ensuring due process for bill formatting.

What did the court decide?

Ordered 2nd respondent to hear petitioner, release Performance Security within one month if guarantee period expired, and disburse eligible amounts under final bill within two months, allowing chance

A.Kishore Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶4

1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9670 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

A.KISHORE (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR), AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. ARJUNAN, ANJALI, KANNANCODU, VETTIKAVALA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691538 BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR PMU-KRFB, GROUND FLOOR, B.S.N.L., DOOR SANCHAR BHAVAN, P.M.G. JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033 3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, (KRFB-PMU), KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691008 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR – SC.

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

W.P.(C) No. 9670 of 2023

¶12

: 2 :

¶13

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. ========================= W.P.(C).No. 9670 of 2023

¶14

========================== Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2023

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner contracted with the respondents for a

¶17

particular work, but could not complete it. The contract was thus terminated, but without risk and cost being attached to the petitioner; and he says that the guarantee period for the works completed by him is now over. He, therefore, prays that the respondents be directed to release to him the Performance Security executed by him at the time of execution of the contract, as also to disburse to him the amounts due under his final bill, namely Ext.P16, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶18

In response to the afore submissions of Sri.Anchal C.Vijayan – learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Public Works Department – Sri.K.V.Manoj Kumar, invited my attention to Ext.P15 proceedings of the 2^nd respondent – Project Director, wherein, he has stated that, once the final bill is submitted by the petitioner, it will be scrutinised and necessary action taken to disburse the eligible amounts under it. He asserted that, Ext.P16 cannot be construed as a final bill because it is not in its proper format; and, therefore, prayed that this may also be left

¶19

W.P.(C) No. 9670 of 2023

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

to be considered by the 2^nd respondent appropriately. He concluded saying that, since the petitioner now says that the guarantee period is also over, he will not stand in the way of this Court issuing appropriate orders with respect to the Performance Security; however, leaving liberty to his client to verify whether the afore assertion is accurate.

¶22

When I evaluate and consider the afore rival submissions, it is indubitable that there is hardly any controversy left between the parties. This is because, if, as stated by the petitioner, the guarantee period is over, then the respondents cannot retain the Performance Security furnished by the petitioner; while, if Ext.P16 is the final bill, then the eligible amounts under it will have to be disbursed. If, on the contrary, Ext.P16 is not in its proper format, the competent Authority must offer liberty to the petitioner and instruct him to present it in such format, as is statutorily required.

¶23

In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is ordered in the following manner:

¶24

(a) The 2^nd respondent will immediately hear the petitioner, and if it is found that the guarantee period is over, then release the Performance Security furnished by him, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶25

W.P.(C) No. 9670 of 2023

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

(b) Consequent to the afore hearing, if Ext.P16 is found to be in its proper format, then all action to disburse eligible amounts under it will be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; but, if, on the contrary, the petitioner is found required to present Ext.P16 in its proper format, an opportunity for the same shall be made available to him, which he shall accede to, in terms of law. I, however, clarify that merely because Ext.P16 is not in its proper format or there are technical objections against it, eligible amounts shall not be denied to him within the afore time frame.

¶28

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶29

anm

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 9670 of 2023

¶31

: 5 :

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9670/2023

¶33

PETITIO	NER EXHI	BITS
Exhibit	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION NO. PMU-KRFB/T-10/2017-18 DATED 08.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 66/PWD008- 02/PD/PMU-KRFB/11B/KLM/2017 DATED 08.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.BD/74/2013/DESIGN/HW DATED 19.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (DESIGN), PWD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Exhibit	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.D2 (B) 6593/2016 DATED 28.11.2018.
Exhibit	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. DB (B9) 20-2012 DATED 28.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
Exhibit	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BRIDGES DIVISION.
Exhibit	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. D2 - 6593/2016 DATED 10.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PWD008- 02/MISC-01 DATED 04.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KIFB TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P9	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.66/PWD 008- 02/11B/KLM/2017 DATED 17.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P11	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.66/PWD 008- 02/PD/PMU-KRFB/11B/KLM/2017 DATED 29.12.2021.
Exhibit	P12	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25.05.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P13	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 4386/2020 DATED 14.06.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Exhibit	P14	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.07.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21631/2022.

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 9670 of 2023

¶35

: 6 :

¶36

Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PDKRFB-KLM 02(11B)/1/2022 - SSI DATED 12.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE CC 3RD AND FINAL BILL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶37

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

A.Kishore v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Kishore 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

Thomas J Vayalat Vs South Indian Bank Ltd.

Pradeep Kumar P. Vs the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs

Mary Teresa Gladys M.P., Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

Kizhathadiyoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.1995, Vs State of Kerala

Thankachan P.K Vs Kerala State Transport Project

Lbs Road Residents Assciation Vs a.S.Naizam