Kerala High Court
Abdul Rahiman T.A vs State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2016
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAYOF AUGUST 2017/17TH SRAVANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 25625 of 2017 (C)
-----------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S) :
-------------------------
ABDUL RAHIMAN T.A.,
S/O.MAHIN HAJI, AGED 55 YEARS, P.W.D.CONTRACTOR,
JASMIN HOUSE, THEKKIL P.O., KASARAGOD.
BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.P.SASI
SRI.S.SHYAM KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
P.W.D.NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE-673 005.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
P.W.D.ROAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD-678 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S.KANNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 25625 of 2017 (C)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17-10-2016 ACCEPTING
THE TENDER OF THE PETITIONER AND DIRECTING TO FURNISH
SECURITY DEPOSIT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01-12-2016 IN
WP(C)NO.33944 OF 2016.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18-10-2016 REFERRED TO
AS EXT. P2 IN EX.P2 JUDGMENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-07-2017 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27-06-2017
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DATED 30-06-2017
OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION,
PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.DC-01/PRICE/2015/534
DATED 17-07-2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT SUPERINTENDING
ENGINEER.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO. 429/15/FIN.
DATED 28.09.2015.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.25625 of 2017
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of August, 2017
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a PWD contractor. In terms of Ext.P1, the petitioner has been awarded a new work. As per Ext.P1, the petitioner was directed to furnish security deposit and performance guarantee for the purpose of enabling the respondents to enter into necessary agreement with the petitioner for execution of the work. Since substantial amounts are due to the petitioner from the department, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.33944 of 2016 and obtained a direction to the respondents concerned to permit the petitioner to W.P.(c).No.25625 of 2017 : 2 : furnish one of his pending bills towards security deposit and performance guarantee. Ext.P2 is the judgment in the said case. It is stated that in the light of Ext.P2 judgment, a pending bill of the petitioner has been accepted towards security deposit and performance guarantee in respect of the work covered by Ext.P1 award. It is also stated by the petitioner that the pending bill which was furnished by the petitioner by way of security deposit and performance guarantee has now matured for payment and the petitioner, therefore, wants the said bill to be substituted with a running bill of the very same work. Though a request has been made by the petitioner for the said purpose, the same is not being considered, submits the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.
3. In so far as running bills have been raised and admitted for payment in respect of the very same work, I am W.P.(c).No.25625 of 2017 : 3 : of the view that the same can be accepted by the department towards security deposit and performance guarantee for the work.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to accept the running bills of sufficient value in respect of the very same work towards security deposit and performance guarantee, as requested for by the petitioner.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE rsr