Kerala High Court
K.Ummer vs Chief Electrical Engineer on 31 March, 2023
W.P.(C). No.12192 of 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 12192 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
K.UMMER
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. MOIDEEN, RESIDING AT KUTTEERI HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL
P.O, WAYANAD 673 593
BY ADVS.
V.HARISH
RAJAN VISHNURAJ
RESPONDENTS:
CHIEF ELECTRICAL ENGINEER,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ELECTRICAL WING) OFFICE OF THE
CHIEF ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
BY SMT.RESHMI.K.M. - SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). No.12192 of 2021 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2023
This writ petition is filed by an A Class Contractor challenging Exhibit P12
order passed by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Building Section,
Thiruvananthapuram dated 20.2.2021, declining to renew the electrical
contractor licence of the petitioner, apparently on the basis of the termination of
works at the risk and cost of the petitioner still pending consideration; and for a
writ of mandamus directing the respondent to renew the petitioner's contractor
licence by processing Exhibit P7 application.
2.Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
2.1 According to the petitioner, in the year 2011, the petitioner had
undertaken works under LI Scheme for the electrification works of various
irrigation projects of 5 Panchayats in Wayanad District. Petitioner executed an
agreement for six works under one agreement. It is the case of the petitioner
that the civil and mechanical works in the said irrigation sites were not
completed and consequent to which, petitioner could not complete the work in
time. It is further submitted that in spite of the non completion of civil and
mechanical works, petitioner had installed panel boards in the pump houses in 5
Panchayats. According to the petitioner, petitioner has submitted various
representations before the statutory authorities narrating the difficulties faced by
the petitioner in completing the work. It is the case of the petitioner that 95% of
the works were completed and communicated the inability for completing the
remaining 5% of the works.
3. Anyhow, the work awarded to the petitioner was terminated at the risk
and cost of the petitioner and directed to recover an amount of Rs.69,100/-,
evident from Exhibits P5 and P6 orders dated 17.1.2020 and 16.10.2020,
respectively. The case projected by the petitioner is that in order to avoid any
further complex and other situations, petitioner did not challenge the termination
of the work at the risk and cost of the petitioner and the adjustment of the
amount made from the bill amount due to the petitioner. It is further submitted
that now several years have elapsed and merely because 5% work could not be
completed by the petitioner, the renewal of licence of the petitioner cannot be
withheld by the respondent indefinitely.
4. The respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying his stand.
Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the stand adopted in the writ
petition. It is an admitted fact that in so far as the termination of the contract at
the risk and cost of the petitioner and the adjustment of the amount of
Rs.69,100/- from the bill amount due to the petitioner, it is not under challenge.
The sole relief sought for by the petitioner is consideration of Exhibit P7
application.
5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner - Sri.Harish Vasudevan and
learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.Reshmi.K.M.
6. The deliberation made above would make it clear that the petitioner has
conceded to the termination of contract and the recovery of the amounts due
from the bill amount due to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the
electrical work could not be completed due to multiple factors, including failure
on the part of the contractors, who were doing civil and mechanical works, to
complete the work enabling the petitioner to carry out electrical works.
7. Whatever that be, it is clear from Exhibits P5 and P6 that the risk and cost
element involved is only Rs.69,100/-, which was credited to the account of the
Government. Merely because there was some default on the part of the
petitioner to complete a portion of the work, it cannot be said that the petitioner
is liable to be disqualified forever. Now three years have elapsed from the date
of termination of the work i.e., Exhibit P5 dated 17.1.2020. Taking into account
the risk and cost amount involved in the case of the petitioner, I think it is only
appropriate that the respondent is directed to consider Exhibit P7 application
submitted by the petitioner for renewal of registration dated 30.12.2019 bearing
in mind the observations contained above.
8. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed to the extent of directing the
respondent to consider Exhibit P7 application submitted by the petitioner taking
into account the observations made above, and the trivial nature of risk and cost
factor imposed against the petitioner by imposing liquidated damages of
Rs.69,100/- for not completing the electrical work undertaken by the petitioner;
at the earliest, at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgement.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
smv JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12192/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S REGISTRATION
CARD ISSUED BY THE PWD TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 15-09-2014
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, PWD (ELECTRICAL DIVISION),
KOZHIKODE
Exhibit P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
25-05-2015 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD (ELECTRICAL
DIVISION), KALPETTA
Exhibit P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
07-03-2019 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE MINISTER, PWD.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. EL2-598
E/2020 DATED 17-01-2020 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. EL2-598
E/2020 DATED 16-10-2020 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR
RENEWAL DATED 30-12-2019 PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
29-02-2020 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO
402/2020/PWD DATED 07-04-2020 ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Exhibit P10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22-04-
2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PERFORMANCE
COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 22-02-2021
ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PWD (ELECTRICAL)
Exhibit P12 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. EL4 5227
E/95 DATED 20-02-2021 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT.
SENT TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA PWD
ELECTRICAL DIVISIOON KOZHIKODE DISTRICT AS
WELL AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION , KALPETTA, WAYANAD
Exhibit P14 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO EL
1.219/2021 DATED 17.2.2022 FROM THE OFFICE OF
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA PWD ELECTRICAL
DIVISION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) True copy of the letter number D1-422/09
dated 21-08-2013
Exhibit R1(b) True copy of the letter number D1-422/09
dated 03-10-2013
Exhibit R1(c) True copy of the letter number D1-422/09
dated 24-04-2013
Exhibit R1(d) True copy of the final notice dated 10-05-
Exhibit R1(e) True copy of the termination order dated 17-
01-2020
