Pradeep P vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 24037 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
  TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 7TH POUSHA, 1943
                   WP(C) NO. 29576 OF 2021
PETITIONER/

         PRADEEP P
         AGED 54 YEARS
         S/O PUSHKARAN,
         PUNARTHAM, KOOTTIKADA P O, KOLLAM-691020.

         BY ADVS.
         G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
         O.A.NURIYA
         V.JAYAPRADEEP
         ANN SUSAN GEORGE
         D.S.LOKANATHAN
         ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV



RESPONDENT/S:

    1    STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS
         DEPARTMENT (BUILDINGS), SECRETARIAT,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    2    THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
         P W D BUILDINGS, SOUTH CIRCLE, MUSEUM P O,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

    3    THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
         BUILDING DIVISION, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM-691001.

    4    THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
         PWD BUILDINGS SUB DIVISION, CIVIL STATION, PUNALUR-
         691331.
  WP(C) NO. 29576 OF 2021             2

   5      ASSISTANT ENGINEER
          P W D BUILDINGS, MINI CIVIL STATION, ANCHAL-691306.

          GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. PREMCHAND R.NAIR


    THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
  WP(C) NO. 29576 OF 2021                  3


                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a contractor. Being aggrieved by Exhibit

P18 order passed by the Superintendenting Engineer, the

second respondent terminating the contract awarded to the

petitioner (Maintenance works in all Buildings under Kuttalam

Palace and Construction of Reception Block) at the risk and cost

of the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court.

According to the petitioner, the second respondent has

terminated the contract without considering the explanation

submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner has also a case that

while several contractors similarly situated have been given

extension of time for completion of work, the petitioner alone

was discriminated in the matter.

2. When the writ petition came up for consideration today,

the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the

petitioner had preferred Exhibit P14 representation before the

third respondent requesting to extend the period for completion

of the work. However, during the pendency of such request,

Exhibit P18 order was passed by the Superintendenting

Engineer.

3. The petitioner has preferred Exhibit P19 representation

before the first respondent requesting the first respondent to

interfere with Exhibit P18 order passed by the

Superintendenting Engineer. At this stage of the proceedings,

the petitioner limits his prayer for a consideration of Exhibit P19

by the first respondent.

Having heard the submission of the learned Government

pleader and the counsel for the petitioner, there will be a

direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibit P19 with

notice to the petitioner. The first respondent shall take a

decision on Exhibit P19 within a period of one month from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meantime the

work shall not be re-tendered, if not already re-tendered and

coercive steps shall be deferred.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

rmm/28/12/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29576/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PALACE.

Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.07.2016 OF MADRAS HIGH COURT.

Exhibit P3 THE PRINT OUT OF THE FIRST PAGE OF THE SITE WITH THE FACILITY TO BOOK ROOMS DISTRICT WISE.

Exhibit P4 THE PRINT OUT OF THE COURTALLAM PALACE IN THE ABOVE SAID SITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.09.2021 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 THE COPY OF THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT DATED 04.11.2020.

Exhibit P7 THE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON 16.01.2021.

Exhibit P8 THE COPIES OF THE COMPUTER PRINT OUTS DATED 16.01.2021 TO 17.02.20231 OF E-M BOOKS.

Exhibit P9 THE COPY OF THE LETTERS DATED 20.02.2021 OF THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P10 THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.04.2021 OF THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P11 THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.06.2021 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P12 THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.06.2021

OF THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

Exhibit P13 THE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON 30.10.2021.

Exhibit P14 THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.07.2021 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P15 THE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 06.11.2021.

Exhibit P16 THE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION DATED 19.11.2021 WITHOUT EXHIBITS WPC.26146/21.

Exhibit P17 THE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.11.2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P18 THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.11.2021.

Exhibit P19 THE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 14.12.2021.

Exhibit P20 THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.12.2021 NO.1114/2021.

// TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE