Kerala High Court
C.H.Pavithran vs Managing Director
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2013/8TH JYAISHTA 1935
WP(C).No. 11364 of 2013 (U)
--------------------------------
PETITIONER:
---------------
C.H.PAVITHRAN,
PWD CONTRACTOR, PALAKKUNNU P.O, BAKAL 671 318
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH
RESPONDENT:
----------------
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
ROADS & BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD
(RBDCK) 2ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDINGS, M.V ROAD
PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI 682 025.
BY SRI.M.VIJAYA KUMAR, SC, RBDCK
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 11364 of 2013 (U)
---------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
----------------------------
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT DATED 31.5.12 BETWEEN THE
RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE DATED 1.3.13 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 19.3.13 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.3.13 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17.4.13 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 11.4.13 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 8.4.13 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 4.4.13 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30.3.13 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10.TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25.3.13 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11.TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 19.3.13 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12.TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 11.3.13 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.
.....................
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(c) No. 11364 OF 2013
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers.
"a). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P4 representation after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court:
b). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to forebear from initiating any recovery proceedings pursuant to Exhibits P2 and P3, including invocation of Bank Guarantee till orders are passed in Exhibit P4 representation and
c). Issue such other or further orders as this Hob'ble Court may deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case. "
2. The factual position, as narrated in the writ petition, shows that the petitioner was awarded contract for collection of user fee from Sea Port - Air Port Road and Railway over bridge at SN Junction (Tripunithura and Irumpanam) as a W.P.(C)NO.11364/2013 2 single package for a period of one year from 1st June 2012 to 31st May 2013. It is stated that the petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P3 whereby the petitioner has been asked to clear the outstanding dues, lest appropriate action as per clause 3.18 and 3.19 of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent should be perused.
3. The case of the petitioner is that due to an unfortunate incident causing damages to an ambulance vehicle, toll booth had to be closed down for some time, with substantial loss to the petitioner. Some other incidents have also been stated as to the alleged diversion of the vehicles resulting in cut in the collection. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner has been projected by way of Ext.P4 before the 2nd respondent. The prayer is only to cause the same to be considered and finalised, so as to cause eligible deduction to the petitioner.
4. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent as well.
5. After hearing both the sides, this Court does not intend to express anything on merits. The petitioner has already filed Exts.P4 before the 2nd respondent. In view of the fact that W.P.(C)NO.11364/2013 3 the liability of the petitioner stands admitted and covered by Clause 11 in the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent, this Court finds it fit and proper to hold that consideration of Ext.P4 shall be caused to be made, only subject to certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 in accordance with law, at the earliest and at any rate within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till such time, on condition that the petitioner deposits Rs. 25 Lakhs (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) within 'ten days' and another 25 Lakhs(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) within 'ten days' thereafter. If any default is committed, the respondent is free to proceed with further steps without further notice.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dpk /True copy/ PS to Judge.
W.P.(C)NO.11364/2013 4
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dpk.