Allowed

M/S Saaj Constructions v. Kerala State Information Technology Infrastructure Ltd.

Kerala HC7 Feb 2024WP(C)/1126/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractor sought directions for disbursement of amounts under a measurement book against work done for Technopark/KSITIL. Respondents stated evaluation of the claim by a technical team was in progress. The Court allowed the petition with time-bound directions: evaluation within two months, recommendations to Technopark forthwith, and payment of eligible amount within one month thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Time-bound directions to complete claim evaluation (two months), forward recommendations, and pay eligible amount within one month thereafter.

M/S Saaj Constructions Vs Kerala State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

W.P.(C) NO.1126 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S. SAAJ CONSTRUCTIONS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SAJEER K.H., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. HYDROSE, KALARIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM (P.O.), AMBALAMUGHAL, PIN-682 303.

¶8

BY ADVS.ANIL GEORGE JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SMITHA PHILIPOSE ASHIK TOM AAKHIL MOHAMMED.P.M ALEX KEVIN GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 1ST FLOOR, SANKETHIKA, P.F ROAD, VRINDHAVAN GARDENS, PATTAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004.

¶11

2 ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY PARKS REPRESENTED BY ITS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TECHNO PARK CAMPUS, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 581.

¶12

3 SECRETARY, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033.

¶13

SRI. SUNIL V.MOHAMMED(K/001561/2000) SMT. RASHMI K.V. SRI. K.A.ABDUL SALAM

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

-2-

¶16

W.P.(C) NO.1126 OF 2024

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 7^th day of February, 2024

¶19

The petitioner seeks respondents 1 and 2 to be directed to disburse the amount covered by Ext.P2.

¶20

Smt. K.V. Rashmi – learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent today submitted that a statement has been filed by her, wherein, in Paragraphs 2 to 4, the following have been averred:-

¶21

“2. The petitioner in the Writ Petition had approached this Hon'ble Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.16217/2023, which this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dispose on 20.10.2023 vide Ext.P8 judgment. In the said judgment, it was recorded that the claims of the petitioner are being considered and a report from a technical member is being awaited. Technopark had already remitted the admitted amount of 80,53,774 (excluding GST) against the bill of Rs.1,12,77,923 as approved by the Executive Council of Technopark.

¶22

Now the Technical member has submitted his report and it is stated in the report that “According to the agenda notes submitted to the

¶23

-3-

¶24

W.P.(C) NO.1126 OF 2024

¶25

133^rd meeting of the executive Council it was specifically pointed out that in the bill submitted by M/s. KSITIL for the above work substantial variations were seen in the quantities of many items and as such the payment was stopped. The technical officers of Techno Park made detailed site verification and arrived at the correct total figure of the bill that could be legitimately released. This amount was Rs.80,53,774/-(excluding GST) as against Rs. 1,12,77,923/-(excluding GST) claimed in the bill approved by M/s KSITIL. This amount based on actual site verification and checking by Technical Officers of Techno Park was very just and reasonable and the same was approved by the Executive Council on my recommendation. If any review or reconsideration is now required the technical officers of Techno Park and KSITIL should conduct joint inspection and reassess the item quantities and values and report to the CEO to take up the matter with the court. We are not directly involved with the Contractor. Even then the matter has to be settled as per rules and regulations."

¶26

Subsequently an internal agreement was arrived vide meeting held between the 1^st and the 2^nd respondent on 28.11.2023. Accordingly, the 1^st respondent has identified technical team from

¶27

-4-

¶28

W.P.(C) NO.1126 OF 2024

¶29

'GEC Barton Hill', who has established prominence in handling such matters and the respondent herein is pursuing the inspection.

¶30

Till such time, i.e., a final report is submitted by the 1^st respondent, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner need to show some patience. In case on coming out of the report from the 1^st respondent, and if again the petitioner is not satisfied, it is humbly submitted that the remedy available for the petitioner is not to invoke Writ Jurisdiction under Art. 226, but to approach a civil court, having jurisdiction in the matter.

¶31

The respondent herein reserves their right to file a detailed Counter Affidavit, if necessary in the matter. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit to be entertained in a Writ Jurisdiction. If the petitioner has any grievance, it is open for them to approach the civil Court redressing their grievance. Hence this statement may be accepted by this Hon'ble Court and the Writ Petition be dismissed with cost to the respondent.”

¶32

Sri. Abdul Salam – learned counsel appearing for

¶33

the 1^st respondent submitted that the obligation to pay the amount to the petitioner under Ext.P2 is with the 2^nd respondent.

¶34

-5-

¶35

W.P.(C) NO.1126 OF 2024

¶36

Taking note of the afore submissions and since the amount under Ext.P2 are stated to be in the process of being evaluated and assessed by a competent team, I deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition with the following

¶37

directions:-

¶38

i) The 1^st respondent will complete the evaluation of the claim of the petitioner, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

ii) On the afore evaluation being completed, the 1^st respondent will make their recommendations to the 2^nd respondent, forthwith thereafter.

¶40

iii) On the 2^nd respondent receiving the recommendation of the 1^st respondent as afore, they will proceed to pay the eligible amount to the petitioner, within a period of one month thereafter.

¶41

The writ petition is thus ordered.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶44

bpr

¶45

-6-

¶46

W.P.(C) NO.1126 OF 2024

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1126/2024

¶48

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶49

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 DATED 16/06/2021 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MEASUREMENT BOOK SHOWING THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DATED 06/06/2022 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 06/06/2022 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 11/08/2022 Exhibit P6 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN TO THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17/12/2022 Exhibit P7 THE TYRUE COPY OF STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN WP (C) NO: 16217/2023 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P8 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.10.2023 IN WP.C NO.16217/2023 Exhibit P9 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER GIVEN TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT WHO IS THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, I.T DEPARTMENT

M/S Saaj Constructions v. Kerala State Information Technology Infrastructure Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Saaj Constructions v. Kerala State Information Technology Infrastructure Ltd.

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

Geeth C.B Vs Rajasree Menon

Sandhya K.S Vs v. Chelsa Sini

The Merchants Association Cherthala Vs State of Kerala

Shaji v Vs Remla Beevi .I

Prasannan Vs State of Kerala

Pius @ Pius Vadakkekunnel Paul Vs Sri. Vishnu Raj