Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

All Kerala Engineers and Skilled Workers Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

All Kerala Engineers and Skilled Workers vs State of Kerala and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 03, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1118795

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

All Kerala Engineers and Skilled Workers

Respondent

State of Kerala and ors.

Excerpt

.....// true copy // p.s. to judge vs a.v. ramakrishna pillai, j.-------------------------------------------------- w.p.(c) no. 27006 of 2007 -------------------------------------------------- dated this the 3rd day of january, 2014 judgment this writ petition is filed alleging that the petitioner is eligible to get the works referred to in ext.p2 as he is entitled to get preference and the price preference provided under ext.p4 g.o. in the matter of award of the works referred to in ext.p2.2. pursuant to ext.p2, the petitioner submitted tender for the award of the works referred to in ext.p2. the 4th respondent, a private contractor, had also submitted tender for the works referred to in ext.p2. the tenders were opened on 16.07.2007. on opening the tenders, 9% above the estimate rate quoted by the 4th respondent was found to be the lowest. the rate quoted by the petitioner was 19.89% above the estimate rate. the petitioner alleges that the 3rd respondent is not entitled to award the work referred to in ext.p2 to the 4th w.p.(c) no. 27006 of 2007 ..2.. respondent without ascertaining the willingness of the petitioner to take up the work as provided in ext.p4 g.o.4. when the matter came up for hearing, there was no representation for the petitioner. the matter relates to an issue, which arose in the year 2007. it appears from the record that there is no surviving cause of action. therefore, the writ petition is closed without examining the merits of the grounds raised. sd/- a.v. ramakrishna pillai, judge bka/- //true copy// pa to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI FRIDAY, THE3D DAY OF JANUARY201413TH POUSHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 27006 of 2007 (M) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- ALL KERALA ENGINEERS AND SKILLED WORKERS LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.4447, THEVALLY, KOLLAM- 691 009. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT D.RAJKUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. KSEB, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUDHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, KOTTARAKKARA- 691 506.

4. ODAMBAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.FAZIL R2 & R3 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0301-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vs WP(C).No. 27006 of 2007 (M) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------------------- P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PRROCEEDINGS DATED86.2007 OF REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ISSUED TO THE PETITONER. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED286.2007 ISSUED BY THE3D RESPONDENT. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER137.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE3D RESPOMNDENT. P4: TRUE COPY OF G.O. DATED1311.1997 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE DATED136.2007 ISSUED BY THE ASST. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL)KOLLAM. P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE DATED137.2007 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL) KOLLAM. P7: TRUE COPY OF THE B.O.No.1284/98(TC4/PC/4/98) DATED1406.98 ISSUED BY THE K.S.E.B. P8: TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER SCHEDULE OF THE WORK TENDERED AS PER EXT.P2. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE vs A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

-------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 27006 of 2007 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2014

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed alleging that the petitioner is eligible to get the works referred to in Ext.P2 as he is entitled to get preference and the price preference provided under Ext.P4 G.O. in the matter of award of the works referred to in Ext.P2.

2. Pursuant to Ext.P2, the petitioner submitted tender for the award of the works referred to in Ext.P2. The 4th respondent, a private contractor, had also submitted tender for the works referred to in Ext.P2. The tenders were opened on 16.07.2007. On opening the tenders, 9% above the estimate rate quoted by the 4th respondent was found to be the lowest. The rate quoted by the petitioner was 19.89% above the estimate rate. The petitioner alleges that the 3rd respondent is not entitled to award the work referred to in Ext.P2 to the 4th W.P.(C) No. 27006 of 2007 ..2.. respondent without ascertaining the willingness of the petitioner to take up the work as provided in Ext.P4 G.O.

4. When the matter came up for hearing, there was no representation for the petitioner. The matter relates to an issue, which arose in the year 2007. It appears from the record that there is no surviving cause of action. Therefore, the writ petition is closed without examining the merits of the grounds raised. Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE bka/- //True copy// PA to Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial