Kerala High Court
K.N.Mohanan vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 1993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 14168 of 2014 (U)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
K.N.MOHANAN,
NARAYANEEYAM, THEKKEVILA P.O.,KOLLAM-691016
(FROM KETHAPPALLIL HOUSE, AMBALATHUMKALA P.O.,
KOLLAM-695572.
BY ADVS.SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN
SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)
SRI.UDAYAKUMAR SREEDHARAN
SMT.RESHMA ABDUL RASHEED
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
WATER RESOURCES (IR) DEPT. OF IRRIGATION,
GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT-III, KOTTARAKKARA,
KOLLAM-691506.
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
K I PETITIONER (RB) CIRCLE,KOTTARAKKARA,
KOLLAM-691506.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT MABLE C KURIAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 23-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
K.V.
WP(C).No. 14168 of 2014 (U)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1- THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 13-1-1993.
EXHIBIT P2- THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15-15-1993.
EXHIBIT P3- THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE HE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17-11-1993.
EXHIBIT P4- THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
WITH NO.LS1/11347/92 DATED 23-11-1993.
EXHIBIT P5- THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOLE ARBITRATOR
DATED 10-08-1994.
EXHIBIT P6- THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 10-03-2006.
EXHIBIT P7- THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 25-10-2006.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDERS DATED 15.10.1987,27.10.1987
AND 3.2.1988.
R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT
DATED 15.7.1988.
R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT NO 2
DATED 29.10.1988.
R3(D) TRUE COPY STATEMENT
R3(E) TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 8.2.1991.
R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT.ORDER DATED 18.1.1994.
R3(G) TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING IN STAMP PAPER
DATED 30.5.1994.
R3(H) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27.5.1994.
R3(I) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.4.07.
R3(J) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.3.2006.
R3(K) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O NO 1270/93/LR D.DATED 18.1.1994.
WP(C).No. 14168 of 2014 (U)
----------------------------
R3(L) TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERSTANDING DATED 30/5/1994 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT.
R3(M) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 3/7/2014 PASSED BY
THE APEX COURT.
R3(N) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/4/2007.
/TRUE COPY/
K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.14168 of 2014
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2017
JUDGMENT
Petitioner had undertaken the contract work of KIP - Dam, at Parappar Extension of left side training wall, pursuant to the agreement dated 24.06.1987. According to the petitioner, due to various reasons, the cost of work went up very high and the amount of contract proved to be inadequate. During the execution of the work itself, petitioner requested for revising the amount of contract to the 3rd respondent, but in vain. Petitioner completed the work by raising loans from the bank, and he sustained financial loss in connection with the work.
2. Thereupon, petitioner preferred representations before the respondents 2 and 3, resulting in reference of the disputes for arbitration. One P.S. Chandran was appointed as the sole arbitrator, who commenced the arbitration proceedings in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1940. Arbitration Case No.11/1993 was registered. The respondents therein filed detailed statement of defence in the case. While W.P.(C) No.14168 of 2014 2 so, P.S. Chandran died. According to the petitioner, petitioner preferred several representations and reminders before respondents 1 and 2, seeking to get appointed a new arbitrator for proceeding with the case. However, no action was initiated by respondents 1 and 2, which persuaded the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.
3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. An additional counter affidavit is also filed. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner, refuting the allegations and other contentions raised in the counter affidavits filed by respondents 1 and 2. I am not traversing through the same, in view of the limited nature of order I propose to pass.
4. From the fact discussions made above, it is clear that the relief sought for by the petitioner is to appoint an arbitrator in the place of the arbitrator allegedly appointed, viz., P.S. Chandran, who died while the proceedings were allegedly pending. The case advanced by the petitioner is that, petitioner has made his best efforts to get an arbitrator appointed by making various representations to the W.P.(C) No.14168 of 2014 3 Government. However, the Government did not take any action. The sum and substance of the contention advanced is that, unless there is a direction to the State Government to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, it will cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner.
5. It is also clearly evident that, if and when a representation is submitted on the basis of the death of the arbitrator, it is for the Government to take a decision looking into the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, I do not propose to make any comment on the merits of the matter that is projected by the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent in its counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit.
6. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation submitted by the petitioner and take a decision on the same, in accordance with law, and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested persons. A finality shall be attained to the same within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I do not intend or wish to make any expression of opinion on the merits of the matter. The questions of fact and law raised in this writ petition are left W.P.(C) No.14168 of 2014 4 open.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE St/-
23.11.2017