Kerala High Court
John Mathai vs State Of Kerala
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2012/3RD JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No. 30347 of 2007 (K)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
JOHN MATHAI,S/O.MATHAI,
AGED 60 YEARS, VALLIVILA VEEDU, THRIPPILAZHIKOM P.O.
KOLLAM-691 509.
BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIATE,
TRIVANDRUM.
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
UNITED ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD, PALLIMUKKU,KOLLAM.
3. UNITED ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,
PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.VIJULAL
BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE
SRI.K.J.JOMSON
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 24-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C)NO.30347/2007
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 05/09/05
P2 COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT DATED 09/01/2006
P3 COPY OF THE BILL DATED 20/12/05
P4 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE RECOMMENDING PAYMENT ISSUED BY THE
CONSULTANT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 02/01/06.
P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED 13/01/06
P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED 17/02/06
P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/03/06 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER
P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED 15/09/07
P9 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD
P10 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
P11 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF WORK COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 13/03/06
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
R2(A) COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT DIRECTING THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO SETTLE THE ISSUE B MAKING USE OF THE TECHNICAL
SERVICES OF KITCO DATED 3/7/07
R2(B) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/7/2007
R2(C) COPY OF THE BILL DATED 7/2/2006
R2(D) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/2/2006 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER.
R2(E) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/3/2006
R2(F) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/4/2006
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO.JUDGE
sts
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 30347 of 2007
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 24th day of May, 2012.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner entered into a contract with the 3rd respondent-company for manufacturing pre-stressed concrete polls as per the requirements of the Kerala State Electricity Board. According to the petitioner, during the progress of the work, the petitioner had submitted part bills. But the amounts due under the part bills were not fully paid, but only a portion of the amounts covered by the part bills were released to the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that the 3rd respondent took the stand that the 3rd respondent does not have sufficient funds to pay the full amount of the part bills. As a result, the petitioner would contend that, the petitioner was unable to continue the work. Although the petitioner's bills were approved, the amounts covered by the bills were not paid also. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
"i. To direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to pay the bill as approved by them in Ext.P3.
ii. To issue a writ of mandamus and command the 2nd respondent to take a decision on Ext.P8 representation within a short time frame."
2. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit taking the stand that the contract between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent was terminated for breach of contract by the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to payment W.P(C) No. 30347 of 2007 -: 2 :- of the bill amounts. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that no documents have been produced along with the counter affidavit to prove that the contract was terminated with notice to the petitioner.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. I am not going into the disputed questions of fact raised by both sides. But it is not a secret that the 3rd respondent company was in acute financial crunch for quite some time, which fact may have some bearing to the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, I am of opinion that this is a fit case in which the 2nd respondent should consider the claim of the petitioner in the right perspective, insofar as it is clear that the petitioner had completed some part of the work. The petitioner points out that the petitioner had already submitted Ext.P8 representation before the 2nd respondent in this matter.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 in the light of the observations made in this judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/