Kerala High Court
H. Dileep Kumar vs The Mission Director on 12 April, 2024
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
WP(C) No.6135/2022 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
Friday, the 12th day of April 2024 / 23rd Chaithra, 1946
WP(C) NO. 6135 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
H. DILEEP KUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. K.HARIDASAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR,
HI-ELECT ENTERPRISES, TC 42/1305(1), ANRA 111, ASAN NAGAR,
VALLAKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008.
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE MISSION DIRECTOR, STATE MISSION MANAGEMENT UNIT (AMRUT), KERALA,
MEENAKSHI PLAZA, ARTECH BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, THYKKAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014 AND 3 OTHERS.
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to direct the 1st respondent to pass orders on Exhibit P7 taking
P7 into account of the directives issued in Exhibit P1 after hearing the
petitioner and respondents 2, 3 and 4 within a time as fixed by this
Hon'ble Court pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.
This petition again coming on for orders upon perusing the petition
and the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and this Court's order dated
11.04.2024 and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. K.R.SUNIL, KRISHNA
SURESH and SANJUNA GOPINATH, Advocates for the petitioner, GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for R1 and R2, STANDING COUNSEL for R3 and of SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED,
Advocate for R4, the court passed the following:
p.t.o
WP(C) No.6135/2022 2/4
T.R.RAVI.J
-------------------------------------------------------
WP(C) No.6135 of 2022
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024
ORDER
The officer is present as directed. This Court had in
Ext.P1 judgment found that amounts are due to the
petitioner. After rendering the finding on the amounts,
the Court directed the final bill submitted by the
petitioner to be processed. The matter was taken up in
appeal and the appeal was dismissed stating that what
the Court has directed was only processing of the bill. The
Division Bench also took note of the fact that the learned
Judge has given the option for the respondents to
consider whether extra items were necessary for the work
and whether they were actually used by the contractor
and take an informed decision on that aspect. Apart from
that, there has been no interference with the findings of
the learned single Judge.
2. The respondents now submit that the amount
arrived at by the learned single Judge is wrong and what
is payable is much less. It is also stated that as far as the
4th respondent is concerned, what is available with them
is a sum of Rs.16 lakhs and they have not been paid
sufficient amount by the Kollam Corporation for making
the payment to the petitioner. Having been a party to the
judgment of the learned single Judge as well as the
Division Bench, there cannot be a contention that the
amount payable is much less than what the learned
single Judge said. If such a contention is to be taken, it
can only be by way of a review either before the learned
single Judge or in the appeal.
3. The Officer who is present in Court in the above
circumstances submitted that the payment can be
effected within two months. The above submission is
recorded.
Post after two months for reporting compliance.
H/o Sd/-
T.R.RAVI
JUDGE
sn
12-04-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6135/2022
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.11.2020 IN
WP(C) 13419/2013.
12-04-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
