P.T.X.Sons Constructions, vs the Project Engineer,

P.T.X.Sons Constructions, vs The Project Engineer,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 30, 2021

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1658696

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1658696
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar
Decided On: Jul 30, 2021
Case Number: WP(C)/15271/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P.T.X.Sons Constructions,

Respondent

The Project Engineer,

Excerpt

.....execution of the work before its completion. they have been consequently issued ext.p4 communication by the first respondent directing to restore the work within seven days. since the petitioner has not complied with the direction in ext.p4, ext.p7 order has been issued by the first respondent terminating the contract. ext.p7 is under challenge in the writ petition.2. the case made out by the petitioner in the writpetition is that ext.p4 has been issued directing them to resume the work during the period during which there was complete lock down in the state and therefore, termination of w.p.(c) no.15271 of 2021 4 the contract for non compliance of such a direction is illegal. the petitioner challenges ext.p7 order on that ground in the writ petition.3. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel for the corporation.4. the learned standing counsel for thecorporation pointed out that the work referred to in the writ petition is one allotted to the petitioner during 2019 and despite lapse of substantial time, the petitioner could complete only a minuscule portion of the work. it was also pointed out by the standing counsel that the work was terminated as it was convinced that the petitioner will not be able to complete the work within a reasonable time.5. it is seen that the main reason on which thework was terminated is that the petitioner has not complied with ext.p4 direction. ext.p4 direction is one issued on 08.06.2021. as per the said direction, the petitioner had to resume the work within seven days. it is beyond dispute that w.p.(c) no.15271 of 2021 5 there was complete lock down in the state during the said period. it is seen that on receipt of ext.p4, the petitioner submitted ext.p5 representation seeking further time in the matter. ext.p7 order was issued without considering ext.p5 representation. in the aforesaid circumstances, i am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the first respondent.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 15271 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S: M/S.P.T.X.SONS CONSTRUCTIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LIMITED, H.O. THALAYAZHAM, VI/152, THALAYAZHAM P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686607, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.T. XAVIER, AGED 52, S/O. THOMAS, PUTHENTHARA HOUSE, THALAYAZHAM P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686607. BY ADVS. SHAJI THANKAPPAN SUBIN K SUDHEER RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE PROJECT ENGINEER, OFFICER OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER, KEALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BUILDING NO.508, SAI DARSHAN, CHIRAKADAVAM, KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690572. 2 THE DEPUTY PROJECT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, VAIKOM, 32/A/8 MULLAPPARAMBIL BUILDING, VAIKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686641. W.P.(C) No.15271 of 2021 2 3 THE KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, TC 11/570, MUSEUM BAINS COMPOUND, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695003.

BY ADV.SMT.PRINCY XAVIER BY SRI.G.BAIJU RAJ, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.15271 of 2021 3 W.P.(C) No.15271 of 2021 -----------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a contractor who was awarded a work by the Kerala Land Development Corporation Limited (the Corporation). The petitioner has stopped the execution of the work before its completion. They have been consequently issued Ext.P4 communication by the first respondent directing to restore the work within seven days. Since the petitioner has not complied with the direction in Ext.P4, Ext.P7 order has been issued by the first respondent terminating the contract. Ext.P7 is under challenge in the writ petition.

2. The case made out by the petitioner in the writ

petition is that Ext.P4 has been issued directing them to resume the work during the period during which there was complete lock down in the State and therefore, termination of W.P.(C) No.15271 of 2021 4 the contract for non compliance of such a direction is illegal. The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order on that ground in the writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the

Corporation pointed out that the work referred to in the writ petition is one allotted to the petitioner during 2019 and despite lapse of substantial time, the petitioner could complete only a minuscule portion of the work. It was also pointed out by the Standing Counsel that the work was terminated as it was convinced that the petitioner will not be able to complete the work within a reasonable time.

5. It is seen that the main reason on which the

work was terminated is that the petitioner has not complied with Ext.P4 direction. Ext.P4 direction is one issued on 08.06.2021. As per the said direction, the petitioner had to resume the work within seven days. It is beyond dispute that W.P.(C) No.15271 of 2021 5 there was complete lock down in the State during the said period. It is seen that on receipt of Ext.P4, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation seeking further time in the matter. Ext.P7 order was issued without considering Ext.P5 representation. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that until the direction aforesaid is complied with, further action pursuant to Ext.P7 shall not be taken. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE rkj W.P.(C) No.15271 of 2021 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15271/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER DATED POINTING OUT THE ISSUES ON THE SITE BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF LETTER DATED 10/PE(KYLM)/RIDF-XX/2015-16 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER DATED

THE 1ST RESPONDENT REQUESTING THEM TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS IN THE WORK SITE BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF FARMING PERIOD.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.10/PE(KYLM)/RIDF-XX-2015-2016 DATED START THE WORK. Exhibit P5 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 23/06/2021 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD SIGNED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO EXT.P5. Exhibit P7 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER AS PER ITS PROCEEDINGS NO.10/PE(KYLM)/RIDF-XX- 2015-2016 DATED 26/06/2021.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties P.T.X.Sons Constructions, vs The Project Engineer, Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar