Prasad Kumar R vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9753 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 22ND BHADRA,
                           1945
                  WP(C) NO. 8664 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          PRASAD KUMAR R
          AGED 58 YEARS
          S/O. RAJENDRAN, RESIDING AT THAZHUMPAL HOUSE,
          KOIPURAM P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
          DISTRICT, PIN - 689531
          BY ADVS.
          P.HARIDAS
          BIJU HARIHARAN
          SHIJIMOL M.MATHEW
          P.C.SHIJIN
          RISHIKESH HARIDAS
          RAJASREE T.R.


RESPONDENTS:

   1      STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
          DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
   2      EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
          LID & EW DIVISION, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT
          PATHANAMTHITTA,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
          PIN 689645
   3      ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
          LID & EW SUB DIVISION, PANDALAM BLOCK
          PANCHAYAT, KULANADA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA
          DISTRICT, PIN - 689503
   4      ASSISTANT ENGINEER
          ARANMULA GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, , LID & EW
          SECTION, ARANMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.,
          PIN - 689533
 WPC 8664/23
                                ..2..


          BY ADVS.
          GOVERNMENT PLEADER
          ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA

              SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE -GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WPC 8664/23
                                 ..3..



                            JUDGMENT

The disputes projected in this case clearly show that, on

one hand, the petitioner says that he has completed the work

as per the contract entered into with respondent Nos.2 to 4;

while the said respondents maintain that he has not done so.

2. The petitioner alleges that eligible amounts under

the afore said Contract have not been paid to him; while

respondent Nos.2 to 3 take the stand that all such have been

honoured.

3. However, it is without doubt that the Final Bill with

respect to the works does not appear to have been settled by

any Authority; and that there are disputes between the parties

with respect to this.

4. Sri.P.Haridas - learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that, even though his client had preferred the Final

Bill, as evident from Ext.P5, it has been modified by the official

respondents, as if it is an interim one; and that only part

payment has been effected thereon.

5. Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George - learned Government

Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner's WPC 8664/23 ..4..

claims have already been acceded to and that what is now

being sought for by him are with respect to works which have

not been completed.

6. As I have already said above, there are severe

disputations between the parties with respect to the question

whether the work is complete and whether the eligible

amounts due to the petitioner have been paid.

7. It would not be possible for this Court, while it acts

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to enter into

these issues on its merits at the first instance, owing to the

well recognized limitation in jurisdiction.

8. I am, therefore, of the firm view that 2nd respondent

must hear the petitioner and take a final call as to his claim,

including for payment of the balance amounts, as asserted by

him.

In the afore perspective, I allow this writ petition and

direct the 2nd respondent to hear the petitioner, and advert to

all documents to be produced by him or which have been

already produced, and then take a final decision on his claim

for payment of any balance; thus culminating in an appropriate

order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is WPC 8664/23 ..5..

possible, but not later than three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

I make it clear that, even though this Court has not

entered into the merits of any of the contentions of the rival

parties, it will be open to the 2nd respondent to cause all such

enquiries as are necessary, but during such, the petitioner will

be fully notified and given an opportunity to participate,

resulting in the afore directed order/proceedings.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE ACR WPC 8664/23 ..6..

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8664/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER NO. 28/2004-05 DATED 19.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE BIDS LIST NARRATING AWARDED VALUE ETC., WHICH IS TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA ON 09.01.2023 Exhibit3 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.10.2021 Exhibit P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ESTIMATE OF THE WORK ALONG WITH THE SITE PLAN DATED NIL Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOS OF THE COMPLETED WORK Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PART BILL ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 06.09.2022 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2023 ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT AND THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE MEASUREMENT BOOK