Disposed

B Sundaran v. the Secretary

Kerala HC26 Jul 2024WP(C)/26698/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contractor filed a writ petition seeking directions to the state authorities to pass orders on a representation regarding the termination of a contract awarded for seawall construction. The court disposed of the petition by directing the specific respondent to consider the representation and pass orders within a month. No substantive legal principles were laid down.

What did the court decide?

Directed 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation, affording opportunity of hearing, and pass orders within one month.

B Sundaran Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 26698 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

B SUNDARAN
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O BALAKRISHNAN, CHAITHANYA, VALLOM, KOTTARAKKARA P.O,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691506
BY ADV V.A.VINOD

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 THE SECRETARY

¶10

WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶11

2CHIEF ENGINEER (FAC)
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION &
ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

¶12

3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, IRRIGATION SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

¶13

4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, KIP COMPOUND ROAD, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM, PIN – 691001

¶14

SRI. SUNIL KURIAKOSE, GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 26698 OF 2024

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶19

“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 representation within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

¶20

b) To dispense with the production of the translation of vernacular documents;

¶21

c) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶22

The petitioner is a PWD contractor, who has been awarded with three contract works for protection of Alappad Seacoast on quotation basis. No contractors opted to take up the work, even though tenders were issued on a number of occasions. Accordingly, the petitioner entered into an agreement to execute the work. However, he could not complete the work due to unavailability of big granite rock suitable for seawall construction. Since the petitioner could not complete the work, the contract was terminated and fresh tenders were issued.

¶23

WP(C) NO. 26698 OF 2024

¶24

-3-

¶25

Under such circumstances, the petitioner preferred a

¶26

representation seeking to revoke the termination of the contract and allow him to carry out the work. For the expeditious disposal of the said representation, the petitioner approached this Court and obtained Ext.P5 judgment, wherein, this Court directed the authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a stipulated period.

¶27

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner was heard, no orders were passed yet. In such circumstances, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 representation siting all these aspects and seeking for a direction to revoke the order of termination.

¶28

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶29

Considering the limited nature of prayer sought for in the writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 representation

¶30

WP(C) NO. 26698 OF 2024

¶31

dated 10.07.2024, submitted by the petitioner, within a period of

¶32

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶34

 Sd/-

¶35

P.M.MANOJ

JUDGE

26.07.2024

WP(C) NO. 26698 OF 2024

¶40

-5-

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26698/2024

¶42

`PETITION`	`ER`	`EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF` `16.07.2021 ISSUED` `AWARDING THE WORK`	`THE LETTER DATED` `BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT` `TO THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF` `16.07.2021 ISSUED` `AWARDING THE WORK`	`THE LETTER DATED` `BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT` `TO THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF` `16.07.2021 ISSUED` `AWARDING THE WORK`	`THE LETTER DATED` `BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT` `TO THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF` `06.11.2021 ISSUED` `TO THE GEOLOGIST K`	`THE LETTER DATED` `BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT` `OLLAM`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO 21235/2023 DATE`	`JUDGEMENT IN W.P (C)` `D 14.07.2023`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`THE REPRESENTATION`
		`SUBMITTED BY T` `10.07.2024 BEFORE`	`HE PETITIONER DATED` `THE 3RD RESPONDENT`

B Sundaran v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Sundaran v. the Secretary

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

Abdul Majeed. O Vs Kerala Water Authority

C.O. Johnson Vs the State Police Chief

Roy Mathew Vs Kerala Water Authority

Jincy C. Mathew Vs the Village Officer

Finorchem Ltd., Vs Register of Companies

A. Jayanthi Vs the State Election Commission