Kerala High Court
V.Shahul Hameed vs Bhandari Swagat Ranveerchand on 23 February, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Friday, the 23rd day of February 2024 / 4th Phalguna, 1945
CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 189 OF 2024(S) IN WP(C) 13957/2022
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
V.SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 54 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER,
M/S. MIDLAND ENGINEERING & CONTRACTING COMPANY,
VARIKKODAN BUILDING, DOWN HILL.P.O. MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505,
RESIDING AT VARIKKODAN HOUSE, DOWN HILL.P.O.
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505.
BY ADVOCATES M/S. P.SHANES METHAR & N.KRISHNA PRASAD.
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT:
BHANDARI SWAGAT RANVEERCHAND, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, OBSERVATORY HILLS,
VELLAYAMBALAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.
BY SRI.P.M.JOHNY, STANDING COUNSEL
This Contempt of court case (civil) having come up for orders on
23.02.2024, the court on the same day passed the following:
P.T.O.
AMIT RAWAL, J.
=================
Con. Case (C ) Nos. 177, 178, 182, 189,
192, 198, 201 and 204 of 2024
=====================
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2024
ORDER
This Court on 15.9.2023 had disposed of many writ
petitions vide a common judgment by observing as under:
12. This Court while admitting the writ petitions issued
the interim order making it clear that the execution of the
agreement will be without prejudice to the contentions of
the petitioner. It is settled law that the terms and conditions
of the tender cannot be deviated in mid way; in other
words, once the rule of business has started it cannot be
deviated as per the choice of the authority competent to
accept the tender, after undergoing the rigmarole/process
of examination of both technical and financial bids. This is
precisely what has been done giving a cause to the
petitioner to approach this Court, which in my view is a
prima facie act of not only arbitrariness but contumacious.
The whole purpose of awarding the work is to provide
water supply to various Panchayats or the public living in
the particular area. But it has been seen that the litigation
at the hand of the State Government sometimes becomes
inevitable when certain stringent conditions which are
unknown to the rules of contract are unnecessarily
implored. It cannot be countenanced that such conditions
can go unnoticed from the scrutiny of the Court while
exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. 13. I am of the view that the
impugned communication directing the petitioner to reduce
the Quoted Rate strictly not as per the terms and conditions
of the tender by applying the contents of Government Order
dated 01.09.2016 is not only incorrigible but fallacious and
contumacious. Accordingly, the said condition in the
impugned orders is hereby quashed. Writ petitions are
allowed. Writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the
respondents to issue fresh work orders to the petitioner at
their Quoted Rate and enter into supplemental agreements
accordingly, within a period of two months, so that the
petitioner contractor is able to carry out the contract within
the time line and further direction is issued that in case
certain works were executed, respondents shall pay to
petitioners based on the agreements/supplemental
agreements within one month.
2. Time line fixed therein has also not been adhered
to, resulting into present contempt petition. On 9.2.2024
notice was issued.
3. Counsel for the respondents submits that they
are not in a position to comply with the judgment owing to
the financial crisis. Counsel for the petitioners submits
that now the respondents have been provided with the
funds. I am of the view that this cannot be a ground for
non compliance of the judgment that it appears to be an
apparent wilful disobedience.
5. In case compliance is not made by the next date,
concerned person would be directed to be present in court.
Post on 1.3.2024.
sd/-
sab AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE
sa/131219sassssabs10.
23-02-2024 /True Copy/ Deputy Registrar
