The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for refund of retained security and deposit alleged to be withheld due to alleged sub-standard road work execution.
Refund of Rs.13,96,286/- within 45 days with 6% per annum interest if not paid.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.08.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.18046 of 2004
Sri Devi Enterprises,
Rep. by its Partner P.Krishnamurthy,
142, M.T.H.Road,
Villivakkam, Chennai-49. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary,
Highways Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
2. The Chief Engineer,
National Highways,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
National Highways, Salem.
4. The Divisional Engineer,
National Highways, Salem. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to disburse the Retention Amount and Security Deposit Amount, totalling Rs.13,96,286/- to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan for Mr.M.Suresh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali, Govt. Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to disburse the Retention Amount and Security Deposit Amount, totalling Rs.13,96,286/- to the petitioner.
the said work and finally submitted the bill. Unfortunately, the amount payable to the petitioner was with-held on the ground that the road laid was sub-standard and that the petitioner was not given any amount as mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and that EMD and FSD were also with-held, totalling Rs.13,96,286/-. For allotment of work to the petitioner, the Department has proceeded against the concerned official under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and one of the charge is that the officer has allowed the contractor to execute a substandard quality of work and thus caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.14,86,453/-. It is further submitted that there was a vigilance enquiry pending against the official concerned and after completion of the vigilance enquiry, ultimately after the filing of the Writ Petition, and after completion of the departmental enquiry, the charges have been held not been proved. Since the work said to have been executed by the contractor is based on the work allotted by the officials of the National Highways Department, and that the charges against the concerned official having been held not to have been proved, any consequential action of the same will have to fail and the Writ Petitioner will have to succeed in this Writ Petition.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS VII)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
Copy to
Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
W.P.No.18046 of 2004
SK(CO)
NR 07/09/2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the department to refund the retention amount and security deposit withheld from the petitioner on the ground of sub-standard work.
Whether the existence of unproved charges against the official who allotted the work negates the ground for withholding payment to the successful contractor.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Devi Enterprises, Rep. by its Partner P.Krishnamurthy
The Secretary, Highways Department
The Chief Engineer, National Highways
The Superintending Engineer, National Highways
The Divisional Engineer, National Highways
S.Vaidyanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
