Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 15TH BHADRA, 1943 PETITIONER: M/S.ORBIT LINKS AGED 43 YEARS RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-16, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.BINESH K. BY ADVS. SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA ELECTRICAL & ALLIED ENGINEERING CO. LTD. A GOVERNMENT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING, MAMALA P.O., KOCHI-682305, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER [PLANNING SUB CONTRACTS] THE KERALA ELECTRICAL & ALLIED ENGINEERING CO.LTD. [KEL], A GOVERNMENT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING, MAMALA P.O., KOCHI-682305. 3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KASARAGOD UNIT, NEAR COURT COMPLEX, VIDHYANAGAR, KASARAGOD - 671 121. BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SMT.RASHMI.K.M, SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
=================== =================== Dated this the 6th day of September 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of undertaking civil contract works with government organizations like Indian Railways and Ministry of Defence and other private sector institutions. The case of the petitioner is that, as per Exts. P1 & P2 work orders, the petitioner was awarded the work of assembly, erection,
cleaning, painting etc. of the suspension bridges at Madakkal and Padanna at Kasaragod District. The case of the petitioner is that, the work awarded to the petitioner is a pure work contract. It is stated by the petitioner that, the work is purely labour work involving erection and assembly with materials supplied by the respondents and as per the
design and instructions from the respondents. It is further stated in the writ petition that the structural columns construction and entire civil works were executed by another agency to whom that work was awarded by the
respondents. According to the petitioner, the work as per Ext. P1 was over and the bridge was opened to the public in the month of April, 2013. At that point of time, the work awarded as per Ext. P2 at Padanna was on its half way. However, after around 45 days, one of the main columns supporting the bridge at Madakkal collapsed whereby
bringing down the entire structure. It is further stated in the writ petition that, from the initial investigation, the main reason for the cause of collapse of the bridge at Madakkal is the manufacturing / design defect of the main columns supporting the bridge. After the collapse of the bridge at Madakkal, the petitioner was instructed to stop the work awarded as per Ext. P2 in the month of June, 2013. The petitioner submitted that, the work awarded to the
petitioner as per Ext. P2 was on its half way at that time. The petitioner stated that, the petitioner completed the erection of roller support, pulley blocks, main cable wire rope, anchor rope and counter weights etc. The work awarded to the petitioner was stopped in its half way. Hence the petitioner submitted Ext. P3 letter to the 2 nd respondent intimating the hardships caused due to the stoppage of works and also requesting to give permission to restart the work. Since there was no response forth coming from the part of the respondents to Ext. P3, the petitioner preferred Exts.P4, P5 and thereafter Ext. P6 representations before the respondents. There was no response and hence this writ petition was filed with the following prayers;
“ i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to release an amount of Rs. 10,20,601/ [Rupees ten lakhs twenty thousand six hundred and one only] as requested in Ext. P-6 with 18 % interest p.a. to the petitioner forthwith; ii. To issue and writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext. P-6 in accordance with law within a time limit as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. iii. To declare that the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs. 10,20,601/- [Rupees ten lakhs twenty thousand six hundred and one only] as requested in Ext. P-6 from the respondents for the works executed as per Exts. P-1 & P-2. iv. To pass such other orders or directions which in the circumstances of this case, this Hon'ble Court deems fit.”
2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled the amount mentioned above with interest for the work they have done.
3. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed a statement disputing the averments in the writ petition. Several contentions are raised in the writ petition.
4. This writ petition is pending before this Court from 2015 onwards. According to the petitioner, he is not
responsible for the collapse of the bridge and the petitioner is entitled the amount due to him for the work they have done. This is disputed by the 1st and 2nd
respondents. According to the petitioner, the amount claimed include the security amount. According to the respondents, the amount due is already paid except the retention amount and the security amount. Anyway this matter is pending before this Court from 2015 onwards. According to me, the grievance of the petitioner is to be considered by the competent authority of the 1st and 2nd respondents, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is free to file an additional representation and documents, if necessary to substantiate their case.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner;
1. The competent authority of 1st and 2nd respondents will consider the grievance of the petitioner narrated in this writ petition, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is free to file an additional representation and additional documents, if any to substantiate the case before 1st and 2nd respondents within a period of three weeks from today.
3. The competent authority of 1st and 2nd respondents will decide the matter within two months from the date of receipt of the additional representation and documents, if any from the petitioner. (Sd/-) P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE LU APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39309/2015 PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER
DATED 11.08.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE SCHEDULE FOR WORK ORDER. EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 25.02.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE SCHEDULE FOR WORK ORDER.
EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.07.2013. EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.07.2014. EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.11.2014. EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.10.2015.
// True Copy // PA to Judge