Allowed

Ceiba Ecc Pvt. Ltd. v. The Chief Engineer

Madras HC21 Dec 2020WP/5438/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners, a company awarded an infrastructure contract, sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Chief Engineer to decide on a deferred payment proposal within six weeks after a hearing, as the proposal remained pending since 2015 despite representations.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to decide the petitioner's representations and proposal within six weeks after issuing notice and affording an opportunity of personal hearing.

Ceiba Ecc Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Chief Engineer — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.12.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶5

W.P.No.5438 of 2020

¶6

Ceiba ECC Pvt. Ltd.,

¶7

Rep. by its Authorized Representative, G.Brahmananda Rao, Road No.4, Dr.AS.Rao Nagar, Secunderabad, Telangana 500 062. ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Chief Engineer, Fishing Harbour Project Circle, Tsunami Project Implementation Unit, Fisheries Department, DMS Campus Teynampettai, Chennai.

¶8

The Executive Engineer,
Fishing Harbour Project Division,
Fisheries Department,
Nagapattinam. .. Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: The Writ Petition has been filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to pass orders on the proposal submitted by the second respondent in his proceedings in Lr.No.FIII/2/03(A)/FHPD/ NGT/DB/2014, dated 06.05.2015 within a time that may be stipulated by this Court by considering the petitioner's representations dated 23.01.2018 and 06.03.2018.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/s.Gopika Nambiar For Respondents : Mr.V.Shanmugasundar Special Government Pleader O R D E R

¶11

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to pass orders on the proposal submitted by the second respondent in his proceedings in Lr.No.FIII/2/03(A)/FHPD/ NGT/DB/2014, dated 06.05.2015 within a time that may be fixed by this Court

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

considering the petitioner's representations dated 23.01.2018 and 06.03.2018.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Company is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. It is involved in the business of infrastructure development. The respondents issued an advertisement calling for tenders for construction of Diaphragm Wall and retaining Wall along with southern side of Kaduvaiyur River. The said work was awarded to M/s.Aster Infratek Pvt. Ltd., which later changed its name to the present one of the petitioner Company.

¶15

She further submits that the said contract was awarded to the petitioner Company for the afore-mentioned infrastructure development vide proceedings of the respondent dated 28.11.2011 for a tender work value of Rs.10,56,75,045/-. The petitioner had completed the said work to the satisfaction of the respondents on 28.02.2015. The defect liability period for the said infrastructure had also expired in May, 2016. However, while the work was in progress, the Diaphragm Wall deflected resulting in few other works. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a claim for about Rs.1,12,56,766/- through the representation dated 10.11.2014 and requested payment of the same. However, due to paucity of funds, only a sum of Rs.52,84,000/- was sanctioned and paid by the respondents to the petitioner with an assurance to pay the balance. Hence, another representation was preferred seeking payment of the balance amount of Rs.59,72,766/-. In pursuant to the same, the second respondent by his proceedings dated 06.05.2015 addressed to the first respondent, had laid a proposal for sanction of the said sum and for payment of the same to the petitioner. Despite the said proposal having been submitted by the second respondent to the first respondent in the year 2015, there has been no decision taken by the first respondent on the said proposal till date.

¶16

She further submits that in the meanwhile, the petitioner had preferred representations on 23.01.2018, 06.02.2018 and 06.03.2018 seeking release of the said payment, but, the same are yet to be disposed of by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on either side, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the representations, directs the first respondent to consider the petitioner's

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

representations dated 23.01.2018 and 06.03.2018, which were sent pursuant to the proceedings of the second respondent in Lr.No.FIII/2/03(A)/FHPD/ NGT/DB/2014, dated 06.05.2015 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the petitioner and the persons interested in this regard and also affording them an opportunity of personal hearing, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
asi
To
1. The Chief Engineer,
Fishing Harbour Project Circle,
Tsunami Project Implementation Unit,
Fisheries Department,
DMS Campus Teynampettai,
Chennai.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Fishing Harbour Project Division,
Fisheries Department,
Nagapattinam.
+1 Cc to M/s. Gopika Nambiar, Advocate sr 42527.
W.P.No.5438 of 2020
GPL(CO)
SP(19/01/2021)

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Ceiba Ecc Pvt. Ltd. v. The Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ceiba Ecc Pvt. Ltd. v. The Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sridhar Subramaniam, Vs Union of India

Mr.Haneef Mohamed Sultan Mohideen, Vs Union of India

Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs The Secretary

K.Ruckumani Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

New Chennai Cements Private Limited Vs Union of India

Hemant Kumar Shukla Vs the Senior Divisional Manager