Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 13968 OF 2020 PETITIONER/S: LEE BUILDERS REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER BABU THOMAS, AGED 47 ,S/O. THOMAS, LEE GARDEN, M C ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 542 BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SHASHTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001 2 THE BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT MANAGER PROJECTS,POST BAG NO.2-AMBALAMUGHAL, KOCHI,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 301 BY ADVS. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM OTHER PRESENT: SMT.RAMOLA NAYANPALLY, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
============================================================== W.P.(C) No. 13968 of 2020 - U =================================================================================== Dated this the 29th day of October, 2021
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers: “(i). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appro- priate writ, order or direction commanding the second respondent to process the bill Ext-P1 of the petitioner, and to decide upon the same, within stipulated time limits, in the interest of justice
(ii) To pass any such or further orders as the peti- tioner may seek and this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant.”
2. The petitioner is a firm awarded the work “Civil PEB
Structure Work, electrical works for maintenance shed and Ex- changer shed of IREP”, Bharath Petrolium Corporation Ltd. It is the case of the petitioner that because of the soil condition, ad- ditional work had to be done at the site. This incurred addi- tional expenses and hence, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 bill before the 2nd respondent. But, Ext.P1 bill is not considered by -3- the 2nd respondent and hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent. I also heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent
submitted that a counter affidavit is filed by the 2 nd respondent, in which it is specifically stated that the 2nd respondent has not received Ext.P1 bill. The learned Standing Counsel also sub- mitted that the petitioner is not eligible for any amount and the amount due is already paid.
6. According to the petitioner, he is entitled some more amount because of some additional work. It is stated that the petitioner submitted Ext.P1, but the 2nd respondent says that the same is not received.
7. In such circumstances, according to me, without ex-
pressing any opinion on merit, there can be a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh bill to the 2 nd respondent for get- ting the amount for the additional work, if any, and there can -4- be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the same, in ac- cordance to law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:
1. The petitioner is free to submit a fresh bill for get- ting payment for the additional work, if any, done by him, within three weeks from the date of re- ceipt of a copy of this judgment.
2. Once such a bill is received by the 2nd respondent,
the 2nd respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an op- portunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expedi- tiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of bill.
3. All the contentions of the petitioner in this writ
petition are left open. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE das -5- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13968/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES AND THE ADDITIONAL BILL RAISED DATED NIL