Kerala High Court
K.Muhammed vs State Of Kerala
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
WP(C).No.22140 of 2014 (N)
PETITIONER:
K.MUHAMMED,PROPRIETOR,M/S.K.M.TECH ENGINEERS AND
CONTRACTORS,AT PGP V/336,KUZHIPPURAM,VENGARA.P.O,
MALAPPURAM-676304.
BY ADV. SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. MATSYAFED,KAMALESWARAM,MANACAUD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009,REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER,MATSYAFED,KAMALESWARAM,
MANACAUD.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009.
4. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (ENGINEERING),
MATSYAFED,KAMALESWARAM,MANACAUD.P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009.
5. THE MANAGER,PRAWN HATCHERY AND AQUARIUM,
MOPLABAY FISHERIES COMPLEX,DISTRICT HOSPITAL.P.O
KANNUR-670017.
6. THE WORK SUPERVISOR,NET FACTORY,MATSYAFED,
AZHIKKAL,KANNUR-670009.
7. THE SENIOR CONSERVATION ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR CONSERVATION ASSISTANT,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA,KANNUR SUB CIRCLE,
KANNUR-670017.
8. DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
DIRECTORATE,PMG,VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O,
OPPOSITE KSRTC DEPOT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
R1 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT.
R2-R6 BY SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC,MATSYAFED
R7 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
pk
WP(C).No.22140 of 2014 (N)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS
------------------------------------
EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-6-2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2:COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 13-7-2012 ENTERED BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25-8-2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
DATED 26-7-2012.
EXT.P4:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26-11-2012 ISSUED BY THE 7TH
RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07-12-2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P6:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25-5-2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7:COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.2166/D1/2012/MATSYAFED
DATED 17-5-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12-6-2013 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P9:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9-7-2013 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.
EDT.P10:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2-8-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P11:COPY OF THE LETTER DT.30-12-2013 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P12:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22-4-2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
---------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
pk
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
*****************************************************
W.P.(C) No.22140 of 2014
*****************************************************
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner undertaken work on behalf of the Matsyafed. The work was stopped in the midway due to intervention of the Archaeological Department. Ext.P12 is the letter issued by the Matsyafed. It is stated in Ext.P12 that the petitioner has given the bill for the work he has executed. However, it is mentioned that if any bill is left out, the petitioner is free to make necessary request and on being satisfied with such claim, they will pay the amount, if any, due to the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to compensate him and also to conduct vigilance enquiry in this matter.
2. Fact remains that the work was terminated for the reason that the Archaeological Department issued Ext.P4 as W.P.(C) No.22140 of 2014 2 the area of the work falls within the prohibited zone of St.Angelo Fort, Kannur.
Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any direction is required for initiating vigilance enquiry. However, the petitioner has a case that this work has not been properly measured and the bill paid is not sufficient. If that be the case, the petitioner shall make a claim before the second respondent listing out his specific claims. Based on the above claim and on receipt of such claim, necessary decision shall be taken by the second respondent after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of six weeks on receipt of such claim.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln