Partly allowed

Joseph Jacob v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Kerala HC26 Mar 2024WP(C)/2475/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an order rejecting a claim for revision of contract rates without hearing the petitioner. The judgment held that principles of natural justice mandated a hearing before the decision, directing a fresh order after affording the petitioner an opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Ordered Ext.P17 set aside; directed 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders after hearing petitioner and Electricity Board authority within four months.

Joseph Jacob Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2475 OF 2017

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

JOSEPH JACOB
MUNDACKAL HOUSE, PINDIMANA PO, KOTHAMANGALAM
BY ADVS.
G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
NAVEEN THOMAS

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶10

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (TRANSMISSION) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM

¶11

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶12

BY ADVS.
SRI.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR R., SC, KERALA STATE
ELECTRICITY BO
SRI. B PRAMOD, SC
SRI. VENUGOPAL V, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 2475 OF 2017 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner entered into a contract with the Kerala State Electricity Board for the construction of 66 KV Double Circuit line from Pamba Substation to Sabrimala (Triveni)’’. According to the petitioner, the tender for the said work was floated in January-1995. The petitioner states that the probable amount of contract for the said work was Rs.67,53,778/-, which was prepared on the basis of the 1992 PWD schedule of rates. According to the petitioner, though he quoted 325% above the Probable Amount of Contract (PAC), since his tender was the lowest, the petitioner was awarded with the contract and agreement to the said effect was executed on 31.10.1995. It is the case of the petitioner that the work could not commenced since the Electricity Board could not get clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest for diversion of forest land for the construction of the 66 KV Double Circuit line through dense forest. It is submitted that the said clearance was obtained by the Board only on 07.10.1999 and, by the time, the PWD schedule of rates got revised twice, i.e., on 01.07.1996 and thereafter, on

¶17

WP(C) NO. 2475 OF 2017 3

¶18

01.07.1999. It is submitted that, owing to intense pressure from the Devaswam Board and the Electricity Board, the petitioner completed the work and sought for revision of rates.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, this Court, by Ext.P16 judgment, directed the matter to be considered by the Government. It is submitted that, by Ext.P17 order, the Government did not consider any contention taken by the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner, rejected the claim for revision of rates. It is submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied, if Ext.P17 is set aside and a fresh decision is taken in the matter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶20

Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Electricity Board.

¶21

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Electricity Board would submit that the contention of the petitioner that the PAC for the work was on the basis of the 1992 schedule of rates was absolutely incorrect. Reference is made in this regard to Paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit filed in this Court. It is submitted that, even if the revision of of PWD rates is taken into consideration, the petitioner is not

¶22

WP(C) NO. 2475 OF 2017 4

¶23

entitled to any further payment on account of the fact that the petitioner had initially quoted 325% above the probable amount of contract. It is submitted that since the petitioner had quoted 325% above the estimated rate, the cost escalation is already factored and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any further payment.

¶24

Learned Government Pleader does not dispute the fact that the claim of the petitioner was disposed of by Ext.P17 order, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is submitted that the directions contained in Ext.P16 judgment did not require the Government to hear the petitioner before taking a decision in the matter. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot, now contend that Ext.P17 order was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Electricity Board, I am of the view that Ext.P17 order is liable to be set aside on short ground that it was issued without affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. In a dispute like this, it is

¶26

WP(C) NO. 2475 OF 2017 5

¶27

incumbent on the authorities to hear the affected parties, before a decision is taken. I am inclined to take this view as it may be possible for the petitioner to demonstrate that he is entitled to some revision of rates if and when an opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner. Therefore, Ext.P17 order is set aside on the short ground that it is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. The 3^rd respondent shall pass fresh orders in the matter, as directed in Ext.P16 judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorised representative and to the competent authority of the Kerala State Electricity Board, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. I make it clear that, I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.

¶28

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

GOPINATH P.
JUDGE

¶31

ajt

¶32

WP(C) NO. 2475 OF 2017 6

¶33

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2475/2017

¶34

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶35

`P1`	`THE PHOTOCOP OF THE WORK ORDER NO. T2(B)` `756/85 DATED 23/8/1995 ISSUED TO THE` `PETITIONER BY THE BOARD`
`P2`	`THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. T(B)` `756/85/265 DATED 10/7/2000 ISSUED BY THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER`
`P3`	`THE` `PHOTOCOPY` `OF` `THE` `LETTER` `NO` `DB3/2002-03/TRIVENI DATED 25/4/2002 OF THE` `ASSISTANT ENGINEER SUBDIVISON, PUMBA`
`P4`	`THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE` `REVISED ESTIMATE AGED 27/6/2002 (WITHOUT` `SCHEDULES)`
`P5`	`THE` `PHOTOCOPY` `OF` `THE` `NOTE` `NO.` `T2(B)/756/85/434/916` `DATED` `30/11/2001`
	`SUBMITTE BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER` `(TRANSMISSION-SOUTH) TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE` `BOARD`
`P6`	`THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE` `CC BILL NO.I/2002 -03 DATED 30/5/2002` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE BOARD`
`P7`	`THE PHOTOCPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEEETING` `OF THE OFFICIALS OF THE BOARD HELD ON`
`P8`	`THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CC BILL NO. 2/2002-03` `DATED 23/9/2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `BEFORE THE BOARD`
`P9`	`THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. PST/2003-` `04/316 DATED 5/2/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDNT`
`P10`	`THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. B.O.(FM)NO.` `770/2005(TC1/SS/144/93)` `DATED` `10/3/2005` `ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOAR`
`P11`	`THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUGEMENT DATED 28/6/2006` `OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP 7605/2003`
`P12`	`TE` `PHOTOCOPY` `OF` `THE` `SUPPLEMENTARY` `REPRESENTATION DATED 11/7/2006 SUBMITTED BY` `THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`P13`	`THE` `PHOTOCOPY` `OF` `THE` `ORDER` `NO.`
	`T2(B)756/85/638 DATED25/09/2006 ISSUED BY THE` `2ND RESPONDEMNT`

¶36

WP(C) NO. 2475 OF 2017 7

¶37

P14THE APPEAL DATED 4/1/2007 PREFERRED BY THE
PETIITONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
P15THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15/1/2007
ISSUED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT IN RESPECT OF
THE DESPATCH OF EXT. P24 TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
P16TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
14/6/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC
8214/2009
P17THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO. 208/2016/PD
DATED 32/102016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDNENT
Exhibit P18A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
22/11/2001
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R3(a) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTERS SENT BY THE
BOARD TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT R3(b)TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.T2(B)
756/85/83 DATED 20.01.1998
EXHIBIT R3(c)TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER AS A TOKE OF
ACCEPTANCE BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT R3(d)TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. T2(B)
756/85/1102 DATED 17.10.1998
EXHIBIT R1 AThe true copy of the letter sent to the
petitioner on 07.12.1995
EXHIBIT R1 BThe True copy of the letter dated 17.01.1996
EXHIBIT R1 CThe true copy of the letter dated 23.01.1996
EXHIBIT R1 DThe true copy of the letter dated 22.06.1996
EXHIBIT R1 EThe true copy of the letter dated 20.01.1998
EXHIBIT R1 FThe true copy of the letter dated 28.01.1998
duely acknowledging the receipt of the same
EXHIBIT R1 GThe true copy of the letter dated 17.10.1998
EXHIBIT R1 HThe true copy of the letter dated 17.10.1998
containing the acknowledgement of the
petitioner
EXHIBIT R1 IThe true copy of the letter dated 19.01.2000
EXHIBIT R1 JThe true copy of the supplemental agreement
executed by the petitioner on 05.12.2000
EXHIBIT R1 KThe true copy of the relevant page of
technical specifications attached to the
original agreement

Joseph Jacob v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Jacob v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H.Anand Vs State of Kerala

Shri. Mohammed Basheer Vs the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.)

Ravi Vs District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

K.Unnikrishnan Nair, Vs Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal

Athikkal Mohammed Haji Vs the District Collector

Said Muhammed Nizarudin, Vs Union of India