Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/14TH POUSHA, 1942 RP.No.959 OF 2020 IN WP(C)No.33213/2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.10.2020 IN WP(C) No.33213 OF 2019(B) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: MAHFOOSE M.D, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. M.D.ISMAIL, PWD CONTRACTOR, MUNDANGALAM HOUSE, BEVINJA, THEKKIL FERRY P.O., KASARGOD-671 121 BY ADV. SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020 2 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-68202 SC - SRI. VIPIN P.VARGHESE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: :2 :
ORDER
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2021 The petitioner was awarded the work of renovation of footpath and raising of drain in Cochin Corporation. This Court considered the writ petition and disposed of the same with the following directions:-
“In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete the remaining work by granting one month's time from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will be liable to pay 3% of the PAC amount as fine and should also renew performance guarantee. Such grant of time of one month would be subject to all the conditions stipulated in Ext.P7 minutes. To enable the petitioner to complete the work within the said period, Exts.P5 and P9 orders shall be kept in abeyance for a further period of one month. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to claim any right on the strength of this judgment, other than those specifically granted in this judgment.”
2. This review petition has been filed by the writ petitioner contending that the writ petitioner is not in a position to pay 3% of the PAC amount to the respondents. It is the :3 : argument of the learned counsel for the review petitioner that huge amounts are due to the petitioner from the 1 st
respondent-Greater Cochin Development Authority. Therefore, it will be only in the interest of justice that the respondents be directed to adjust the amounts due to the petitioner against the 3% of the PAC amount directed tobe paid by this court.
3. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Considering all aspects of the case, this Court
decided that the petitioner should be given reasonable time to complete the work. This Court also found that the petitioner will be liable to pay 3% of the PAC amount as fine and the petitioner should also renew performance guarantee.
5. Now, the petitioner's grievance is that the petitioner
is not in a position to pay 3% of the PAC amount, that the respondents are allegedly holding certain amounts due to the petitioner and that the said amounts should be adjusted against the payment of 3% of the PAC ordered to be made by :4 : the petitioner. The said claim of the review petitioner cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the judgment, warranting review. Therefore, the review petition is devoid of any substance and it is dismissed. Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/04.01.2021