Kerala High Court
Mahfoose M.D vs The Greater Cochin Development ... on 4 January, 2021
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:
RP No.959/2020
: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
RP No.959/2020
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
RP No.959/2020
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
