Kerala High Court
Marysadan Projects Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Kerala on 19 April, 2022
WA No.501/2022 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
Tuesday, the 19th day of April 2022 / 29th Chaithra, 1944
W.A.NO. 501 OF 2022
AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 13.04.2022 IN W.P.(C) No.1561/2022 OF THIS COURT
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MARYSADAN PROJECTS PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BIBY BABY, W/O.SUBIN GEORGE, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT EDATHALA
HOUSE, MARYSADAN BUILDINGS, KALADY, NEELEESWARAM P.O., ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN-683 574.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LSGD, THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY,
KAKKANAD, PIN - 682 030.
3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD, THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY, KAKKANAD, PIN -
682 030.
4. THE SECRETARY, THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682 030.
5. THE THRIKAKKARA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KAKKANAD, PIN-682 030.
BY STANDING COUNSEL for R4 & R5
Prayer for interim relief in the Writ Appeal stating that in the
circumstances stated in the appeal memorandum the High Court be pleased to
direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to forfeit the EMD amount of Rs.50,000/-
each deposited by the appellant for Exhibits P1 & P2 works and not to take
any disciplinary action against the appellant, pending disposal of the
above writ appeal.
This Writ Appeal coming on for admission on 19.04.2022 upon perusing
the appeal memorandum, the court on the same day passed the following:
[P.T.O.]
WA No.501/2022 2/4
V.G.ARUN
&
C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
============================
W.A. No.501 of 2022
---------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2022
ORDER
Having heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent Municipality, we find that the
issue canvased in this writ appeal requires
detailed consideration. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner drew attention to Clauses 2009.5 and
2009.6 dealing with 'firm period' and 'selection
notice' to contend that, even the respondent
Municipality has no case that the 'selection
notice' was communicated in the manner
prescribed.
Learned Counsel for the respondent
Municipality refuted this argument and submitted
that there is no specific denial of the
Municipality's contention regarding service of
notice within the firm period. As the matter
WA No.501/2022 3/4
W.A. No.501 of 2022
requires detailed consideration, we deem it
appropriate to grant an interim order restraining
the respondent Municipality from forfeiting the
EMD amount deposited by the petitioner for a
period of two months.
Post immediately after holidays.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
Scl/19.04.2022
19-04-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
WA No.501/2022 4/4
EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER DETAILS ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER REGARDING CMLRRP PHASE II BMBC RE TARRING
WORKS AT MASJID ILLATHUMUGAL ROAD IN WARD NO.28 OF THE
THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY DATED 29.08.2021.
EXHIBITP2:
A TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER DETAILS ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER REGARDING CMLRRP PHASE II BMBC RETARRING
WORKS TO KUNNEPARMBIL ROAD IN WARD NO.28 OF THE
THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY DATED 29.08.2021.
