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.

M.Ajithkumar, vs State of Kerala,

M.Ajithkumar, vs State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 08, 2021
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1658645

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
Case Number
WP(C)/15242/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.Ajithkumar,

Respondent

State of Kerala,

Excerpt

.....b, sr.government pleader this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on 08.11.2021, the court on the same day delivered the following:judgmentdated this the 8th day of november, 2021 the petitioner, a government contractor has approached this court seeking to command the respondents to disburse the bill amount of rs.11,43,280/- to the petitioner with respect to the 4 works undertaken by the petitioner.2. the petitioner states that he is a pwd contractorand undertook 4 emergency works of 1) urgent restoration work due to laying of ug cable in kariyavattom-tripadapuram road km 1/700 to 2/800, 2) urgent restoration work due to laying ug cable by kerala communications network in vembayam - pallippuram road km 6/400 to 10/400, 3) urgent restoration work due to laying kwa 63 mm pvc pipe at csme lane from marappalam to artech realtors in tdk road and 4) providing 20 mm bit chipping carpet urgent rectification of mulavana kannamoola bridge road.3. the petitioner executed and completed the workwithin the stipulated time in the year 2012-2013. the total bill amount for those 4 works comes to rs.11,43,280/-. the amount has not been paid to the petitioner so far. the petitioner states that he had borrowed money to execute the work and had to pay interest on such borrowers. now the petitioner is in a financially weak condition. the petitioner submitted ext.p9 representation seeking payment of bill. however, there is no positive result.4. the learned government pleader submitted that thefiles relating to the works are missing and the officers are trying to reconstitute the files. that is the reason for the delay in settling the claims of the petitioner. in the circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to make available photocopies of all the documents available with him to the 3rd respondent, in respect of the 4 works in question. the 3 rd respondent shall take a.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 15242 OF 2021 PETITIONER: M.AJITHKUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, MOHANAM, HSLRA-12, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-11. BY ADV AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPAQRTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ROADS, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS DIVISION, 4 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SUB DIVISION, 5 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD CITY ROADS SUB DIVISION,

SMT.VINITHA B, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of November, 2021 The petitioner, a Government Contractor has approached this Court seeking to command the respondents to disburse the bill amount of Rs.11,43,280/- to the petitioner with respect to the 4 works undertaken by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner states that he is a PWD Contractor

and undertook 4 emergency works of 1) Urgent restoration work due to laying of UG cable in Kariyavattom-Tripadapuram Road KM 1/700 to 2/800, 2) Urgent restoration work due to laying UG Cable by Kerala Communications network in Vembayam - Pallippuram road KM 6/400 to 10/400, 3) Urgent restoration work due to laying KWA 63 mm PVC pipe at CSME lane from Marappalam to Artech Realtors in TDK Road and 4) Providing 20 mm bit chipping carpet urgent rectification of Mulavana Kannamoola Bridge road.

3. The petitioner executed and completed the work

within the stipulated time in the year 2012-2013. The total bill amount for those 4 works comes to Rs.11,43,280/-. The amount has not been paid to the petitioner so far. The petitioner states that he had borrowed money to execute the work and had to pay interest on such borrowers. Now the petitioner is in a financially weak condition. The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 representation seeking payment of bill. However, there is no positive result.

4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the

files relating to the works are missing and the officers are trying to reconstitute the files. That is the reason for the delay in settling the claims of the petitioner. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to make available photocopies of all the documents available with him to the 3rd respondent, in respect of the 4 works in question. The 3 rd respondent shall take a decision on Ext.P9 representation, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the documents from the petitioner, in consultation with the 2nd respondent-Chief Engineer. The petitioner shall also be granted an opportunity of personnel hearing. Such personnel hearing can be through virtual mode/video conference. After hearing the petitioner and after taking a decision, if any amount is found due to the petitioner, such amount shall be paid to the petitioner, within a further period of two months. Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15242/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED

TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RUNNING ACCOUNT BILL FOR THE 1ST WORK. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF RUNNING ACCOUNT BILL FOR THE 2ND WORK. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED TO 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF ACCEPTED SCHEDULE OF RATES. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE WORKING ESTIMATE BILL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 19/04/2010. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.

SR

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial