C.K.Mammen vs The Kerala Water Authority
2021 Latest Caselaw 2452 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

     THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.1608 OF 2021(A)


PETITIONER:

               C.K.MAMMEN, AGED 65 YEARS
               S/O KUNJUKUTTY,
               KUZHIVILAKALEECKAL HOUSE,
               KOMALLOOR MURI,
               CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE,
               MAVELIKARA TALUK,
               ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
               SMT.S.INDU

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN,
               VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

      2        THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
               P H CIRCLE,
               KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA-688001.

      3        THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
               P H DIVISION,
               KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA-688001.

      4        THE PROJECT MANAGER,
               URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
               SCHEME FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM TOWNS (UID SSMT)
               PROJECT DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA-690101.

      5        THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
               KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MAVELIKARA,
               ALAPPUZHA-690101.

               SHRI MILLU DANDAPANI, SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.1608 OF 2021(A)

                                     2




                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioner, who was awarded the work of State

Plan (2018-2019)-RWSS to Nooranad-replacing of old

damaged AC pipeline from Edappan towards Para

Junction with 160 mm (6kg/c,2) PVC Pipeline, has

filed this writ petition stating that the work could

not be completed because of the inaction of the

respondents to get permission for road cutting. It is

stated that even after making all arrangements

petitioner could not complete the work and the

contract period expired in December 2019. Stating

that the respondents have not taken any steps for

renewing the contract the petitioner has approached

the first respondent requesting for foreclosure of

the agreement and for refund of security deposit,

performance guarantee and also the amounts spend by

him towards the work already executed and for WP(C).No.1608 OF 2021(A)

purchase of materials.

2. Shri Millu Dandapani, learned Standing

Counsel opposes the contention of the petitioner that

the work could not be executed on account of the

inaction of the respondents.

However petitioner has approached the first

respondent with Ext.P3 representation pointing out

his grievances as well as the demand. Therefore the

writ petition is disposed of directing the first

respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3

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 AS WP(C).No.1608 OF 2021(A)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 01.03.2019 IN RESPECT OF THE WORK UNDERTAKEN BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 01.03.2019.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 01.12.2020 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE DESPATCH OF EXT.P3.