Kerala High Court
Sri.Prajaraj.D vs Chief Engineer (Buildings) on 11 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 22ND MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.303 OF 2021(K)
PETITIONER:
SRI.PRAJARAJ.D,
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. DAMODHARAN (LATE), THUNDIL RAJ BHAVAN,
PUTHIYAKAVU, KILIMANUR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER
SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN
SRI.ROY JOSEPH
SMT.ANIES MATHEW
SRI.E.HARIDAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 CHIEF ENGINEER (BUILDINGS),
PWD BUILDINGS, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE
COMPLEX, MUSEUM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
2 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT, BUILDING DIVISION, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
3 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDING
MAINTENANCE SUB DIVISION, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
033.
4 ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
BUILDING SECTION, VELLAYAMBALAM, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.303 OF 2021(K)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of February 2021
The petitioner is a contractor who was awarded
the work of construction of Auditorium at
Kattaikonam in Kazhakuttom constituency. It is
stated that Ext.P1 agreement was executed on
25.07.2019. Thereafter the petitioner was asked to
stop the work and to restart the work after
completion of the soil test. Though the petitioner
carried out this soil test on 21.03.2020, no
further direction has been issued by the 3rd
respondent. Stating that the petitioner has stored
all the materials for completing the work in the
site storage area, the petitioner pointed out that
despite submission of several representations for
granting permission to resume the work, the
respondents have not taken any action so far. It
is stated that, on the basis of his
representations, the Minister, who is the M.L.A of
WP(C).No.303 OF 2021(K)
the constituency, had issued Ext.P9 letter
recommending payment towards expenditure incurred
by the petitioner.
2. Though the learned Government Pleader
disputed the contentions in the writ petition, it
is seen that the petitioner has approached the 2 nd
respondent with Ext.P8 representation. It is only
appropriate that the 2nd respondent considers the
same.
3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed
of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to
consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 representation,
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA
JUDGE
DM
WP(C).No.303 OF 2021(K)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.
52/EE/2019-2020 DATED 25.7.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAYOUT APPROVED BY THE
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM
OF HANDING OVER THE SITE TO THE
CONTRACTOR/PETITIONER DATED 27.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.5.2020
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
4TH RESPONDENT ASSISTANT ENGINEER WITH
TYPED COPY.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
19.5.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, PWD
BUILDING WORKS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
MEASUREMENT BOOK.
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE DETAIL BILL PREPARED
PURSUANT TO EXT.P6 MEASUREMENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
22.9.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.9.2020
ISSUED BY THE MINISTER, CO-OPERATION,
TOURISM AND DEVASWOM.
EXHIBIT P9A TYPED COPY OF EXT. P9.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
