Allowed

Pious Antony v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jul 2024WP(C)/22953/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of recovery orders and mandamus for release of a sum without deductions. The Court directed respondents to release recovered amounts regarding works awarded post-13.11.2018, relying on previous judgments. Challenges regarding fines for time extension were rejected as the relief was not pressed.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to release the amount recovered in respect of works covered by Exhibits P1 and P7 without effecting deductions as sought through Exhibit P14.

Pious Antony Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2024 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 22953 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PIOUS ANTONY AGED 67 YEARS S/O. ANTONY, MANNANAL
HOUSE, MATTAKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT - 686 564.
BY ADVS. GEORGE MATHEW M.D.SASIKUMARAN SUNIL KUMAR A.G
DIPU JAMES MATHEW K.T. GEORGE K.V. STEPHY K REGI
PRAVEEN S.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶10

2 THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

3 THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT (INDUSTRIES & PUBLIC WORKS-B) REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

4 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS & BRIDGES), THYCADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶13

5 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS SOUTH CIRCLE, (ROADS & BRIDGES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶14

6 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS DIVISION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 001.

¶15

7 THE SENIOR FINANCE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT P.W.D. (ROADS & BRIDGES), THYCADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶16

SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR, SPL. GP.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C)No.22953 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 22^nd day of July, 2024

¶22

This writ petition is filed seeking the

¶23

following reliefs:

¶24

“i) to call for the records which lead to the issuance of Ext.P14 and to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the same;

¶25

ii) to call for the records which lead to the issuance of Exts.P3, P4 and P9 to the extent it imposes fine for extension of time and to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the same;

¶26

iii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding respondents to release an amount to the tune of Rs.26,86,568/- recovered from the petitioner in respect of works covered by Exts.P1 and P7 without effecting deductions as sought for through Ext.P14.”

¶27

W.P.(C)No.22953 OF 2022

¶28

¶29

When the writ petition is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client is not pressing relief Nos.i and ii, and would be satisfied if relief No.iii is allowed. In support of the said relief, viz; for release of the amount recovered from the petitioner in respect of works covered by Exhibits P1 and P7, learned counsel submitted that the recovery has been effected towards the reduction in the cost of bitumen and the issue is covered by the common judgment in W.P.(C) No.22964 of 2021 and connected cases.

¶30

The issue as far as relief No.iii is concerned, is whether recovery towards reduced rate of bitumen can be effected with respect to a work awarded after 13.11.2018. As per the judgment in W.P.(C) No.22964 of 2021 and connected cases, this Court has declared such recovery to be illegal. Going by the dates and events involved in the present case, I find the

¶31

W.P.(C)No.22953 OF 2022

¶32

¶33

judgment to be squarely applicable.

¶34

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release the amount recovered from the petitioner in respect of works covered by Exhibits P1 and P7, without effecting deductions as sought through Exhibit P14.

¶35

The challenge against Exhibits P3, P4 and P9, imposing fine for extension of the period of contract being not pressed, are rejected.

¶36

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶37

SSK/22/07

¶38

W.P.(C)No.22953 OF 2022

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22953/2022

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶42

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE` `4/201` `RESPO`	`COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF NIT NO.DB-` `8/1262/2018 DTD. 24.11.2018 ISSUED BY 5TH` `NDENT.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE` `11.01`	`COPY OF LETTER NO. DB4/2018/1262/2018 DTD.` `.2019 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE` `20.03`	`COPY OF ORDER NO. DB1(4)/1262/2018 DTD.` `.2020 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE` `13.08`	`COPY OF ORDER NO. DB(1)(4)/1262/2018 DTD.` `.2020 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE` `ISSUE` `KURAV`	`COPY OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DTD. 30.01.2021` `D BY ASST. ENG. PWD ROAD SECTION,` `ILANGAD.`
`Exhibit P6` `Exhibit P7`	`TRUE` `TRUE` `2019`	`COPY OF CHECK LIST DTD. 28.04.2021 OF EXT.P1.` `COPY OF NIT NO. SBD-RD/2019/4168 DTD 30.07.` `ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE` `2020`	`COPY OF LETTER NO. DB6-3487/2020 DTD. 02.11.` `ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE` `2020`	`COPY OF ORDER NO. DB1-2019/ 4168 DTD. 13.07.` `ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE` `2020`	`COPY OF ORDER NO. DB2/2019/4168 DTD. 18.08.` `ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE` `2020`	`COPY OF ORDER NO. DB2/2019/4168 DTD. 09.09.` `ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE` `ISSUE`	`COPY OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DTD. 25.01.2021` `D BY ASST. ENG.PWD ROAD SECTION, ARUNAPURAM.`
`Exhibit P13`	`TRUE` `EXT.P`	`COPY OF CHECK LIST DTD. NIL IN RESPECT OF` `7.`
`Exhibit P14`	`TRUE` `30.04` `COPY.`	`COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO. 3815/ 2021/FIN. DTD.` `.2021 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT WITH TYPED`
`Exhibit P15`	`TRUE` `13.11`	`COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO. 9386/2018/FIN. DTD.` `.2018 WITH TYPED COPY.`
`Exhibit P16`	`TRUE` `17.04`	`COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO. 2816/2020/FIN. DTD.` `.2020 WITH TYPED COPY.`
`Exhibit P17`	`TRUE` `25.09` `COPY.`	`COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO. 5502/2020/ FIN. DTD.` `.2020 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT WITH TYPED`

¶43

SSK //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Pious Antony v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pious Antony 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

Jyotiben Hemantbhai Pastagia Vs Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Limited

Thalavady Grameen Nidhi Limited Vs Union of India

Wellwisher Nidhi Limited Vs Union of India

Saidalavi Vs the Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

Abdul Gafoor Vs the State of Kerala

George Mathew Vs Kerala Land Development Corporation Limited