P.G. Constructions vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 2914 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
     WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 6899 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          P.G. CONSTRUCTIONS,
          PULLANIPARAMBIL, THRITHALA, MEZHATHUR P.O.,
          PALAKKAD-679534, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
          P.P. JAYAPRAKASH, PULLANIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MEZHATHUR P.O.,
          THRITHALA, PALAKKAD-679534.
          BY ADVS.
          K.BABU THOMAS
          MARYKUTTY BABU


RESPONDENTS:

    1         STATE OF KERALA,
              REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
              PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
    2         THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
              PMU, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, GROUND FLOOR,
              BSNL OFFICE BUILDING, DOORSANCHAR BHAVAN, PMG ROAD,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.
    3         THE TEAM LEADER,
              PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, KRFB, RSP MANDIR, TC 15/3039(1),
              EAST PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
    4         THE KERALA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND BAORD,
              (KIIFB), 2ND FLOOR, FENCY SQUARE, M.G. ROAD, STATUE,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

              SRI. K.V.MANOJKUMAR (SC) R2
              SRI. S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR(SC) R4
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 6899 OF 2022

                                     2




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16th day of March, 2022

The petitioner is a Civil Engineering Construction

Contractor. The petitioner undertook the work of "KIIFB

Project-Construction of new Ranni Valiya Bridge across Pamba

River in T.K. Road in Pathanamthitta District". The petitioner

executed an agreement on 21.01.2019. The work is valued at

`24,31,61,486.55. The work could not be completed. The

learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is due to

non-acquisition of the land by the respondents.

2. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent

would deny the allegations.

3. Be that as it may, for the completed part of work, the

petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 Running Account Bill for an

amount of `1,29,99,271/-. The petitioner would submit that the

said amount is due to the petitioner and is liable to be paid. WP(C) NO. 6899 OF 2022

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents

disputed the amount as contained in Ext.P2. However, it is

submitted that Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner

has been received by the 2 nd respondent and the same can be

considered.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation

submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate decision

thereon, within a period of six weeks.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO. 6899 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6899/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE TENDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CC IV AND PART BILL FOR PAYMENT OF RS.1,29,99,271/-.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER-HAND OVER UNHINDERED POSSESSION OF SITE.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER REQUESTING PAYMENT OF THE BILL.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS        NIL