Kerala High Court
Joseph Velupuzhakkal vs State Of Kerala on 4 April, 2017
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
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2017/12TH ASHADHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 19926 of 2017 (M)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
------------------------
JOSEPH VELUPUZHAKKAL,
S/O.MATHEW,VELUPUZHAKKAL HOUSE,CHUNGAKKUNNU.P.O,
KELAKAM,KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REP.BY SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDINGS,
NORTH CIRCLE,PWD COMPLEX,KOZHIKODE-673001.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
ROADS & BRIDGES DIVISION,KANNUR-670 002.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SURIN GEORGE IYPE.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DXY
WP(C).No. 19926 of 2017 (M)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.DC-04/7742/2016 DATED 04.04.2017.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A5-1506/2017 DATED 15.05.2017.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.05.2017.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.6046 OF 2016 DATED
17.02.2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
----------------------------
\\TRUE COPY\\
PA TO JUDGE
DXY
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.19926 of 2017
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a contractor undertaking works of the Public Works Department of the State Government. Now, the petitioner is awarded a new work. Exts.P1 and P2 are the communications issued to the petitioner by the Department in this connection. It is stated that the petitioner is required by the Department to furnish security deposit and performance guarantee for the work covered by Exts.P1 and P2, so as to enable him to enter into the requisite agreement for the execution of the work. The limited prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to accept his unpaid bills towards security deposit W.P.(c).No.19926 of 2017 : 2 : and performance guarantee for the work covered by Exts.P1 and P2.
It is seen that in large number of cases, this Court has granted the relief sought for by the petitioner to similarly placed contractors. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to accept the unpaid bill/bills of sufficient value to cover the amounts towards the security deposit and performance guarantee for the work covered by Ext.P1 and P2 communications. The period prescribed for execution of the agreement for the work will also stand extended by two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, for compliance of the said direction.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE rsr