Lee Builders vs The Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 21463 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 21463 Ker
Judgement Date : 29 October, 2021

Kerala High Court

Lee Builders vs The Union Of India on 29 October, 2021

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 13968 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:

               LEE BUILDERS
               REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
               MANAGING PARTNER BABU THOMAS, AGED 47 ,S/O.
               THOMAS, LEE GARDEN, M C ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR,
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 542

               BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)



RESPONDENT/S:

    1          THE UNION OF INDIA
               MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SHASHTRI
               BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001

    2          THE BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
               REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT MANAGER
               PROJECTS,POST BAG NO.2-AMBALAMUGHAL,
               KOCHI,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 301

           BY ADVS.
           SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
           SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
           SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
           SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
           SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
           SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM



OTHER PRESENT:

               SMT.RAMOLA NAYANPALLY, SC




        THIS     WRIT   PETITION     (CIVIL)    HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   29.10.2021,     THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                            -2-
WP(C) 13968/2020




                              P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                              ==============================================================


                          W.P.(C) No. 13968 of 2020 - U
                    ===================================================================================


                   Dated this the 29th day of October, 2021


                                               JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

"(i). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appro-

priate writ, order or direction commanding the second respondent to process the bill Ext-P1 of the petitioner, and to decide upon the same, within stipulated time limits, in the interest of justice

(ii) To pass any such or further orders as the peti-

tioner may seek and this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant."

2. The petitioner is a firm awarded the work "Civil PEB

Structure Work, electrical works for maintenance shed and Ex-

changer shed of IREP", Bharath Petrolium Corporation Ltd. It is

the case of the petitioner that because of the soil condition, ad-

ditional work had to be done at the site. This incurred addi-

tional expenses and hence, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 bill

before the 2nd respondent. But, Ext.P1 bill is not considered by

WP(C) 13968/2020

the 2nd respondent and hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent. I also heard

the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his

contentions in the writ petition.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent

submitted that a counter affidavit is filed by the 2 nd respondent,

in which it is specifically stated that the 2nd respondent has not

received Ext.P1 bill. The learned Standing Counsel also sub-

mitted that the petitioner is not eligible for any amount and the

amount due is already paid.

6. According to the petitioner, he is entitled some more

amount because of some additional work. It is stated that the

petitioner submitted Ext.P1, but the 2nd respondent says that the

same is not received.

7. In such circumstances, according to me, without ex-

pressing any opinion on merit, there can be a direction to the

petitioner to submit a fresh bill to the 2 nd respondent for get-

ting the amount for the additional work, if any, and there can

WP(C) 13968/2020

be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the same, in ac-

cordance to law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following

manner:

1. The petitioner is free to submit a fresh bill for get- ting payment for the additional work, if any, done by him, within three weeks from the date of re- ceipt of a copy of this judgment.

2. Once such a bill is received by the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an op- portunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expedi- tiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of bill.