SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Ker) 408

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
TRANSCONS CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER P.M. KUNJUMAKKAR - PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS (H) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2017
Decided On : 08-03-2017

Advocates Appeared:
FOR THE PETITIONER: T.B. HOOD, M. ISHA
FOR THE RESPONDENTS: S. KANNAN

The entitlement of contractors for payments without delay and the legality of adjusting the amount due to the financial stipulations were the central legal points established in the judgment.

Headnote:

Financial Stipulations - Public Works Department Contractor - Kerala Financial Code, PWD Manual - Article 180, 184, 185 - The court discussed the provisions of the Kerala Financial Code, PWD Manual, and the contract for execution of the work, and highlighted the entitlement of contractors for payments without delay, the security deposit, and the guarantee fund. The court emphasized the legality of adjusting the amount due to the petitioner to the financial stipulations contained under Ext.P1.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a registered partnership firm and A-class Public Works Department contractor, was awarded a tender for construction. The petitioner was directed to produce a security deposit and performance guarantee, but substantial amounts were due to the petitioner from the respondents for completed works.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that substantial amounts were due to the petitioner from the respondents, and it was unfair to insist on compliance with the financial stipulations contained in Ext.P1. The court emphasized the entitlement of the petitioner to similar relief as in previous cases and directed the respondents to adjust the amount due to the petitioner to the financial stipulations contained under Ext.P1.

Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's entitlement to adjust the amount due from the Department towards the security deposit for the new contract, the legality of insisting on separate financial stipulations, and the impact of the revised P.W.D Manual on the petitioner's claims.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the entitlement of contractors for payments without delay, the legality of adjusting the amount due to the financial stipulations, and the unfairness of insisting on compliance with separate financial stipulations when substantial amounts were due to the petitioner from the respondents.

Final Decision: The court directed the competent respondents to adjust the amount due to the petitioner to the financial stipulations contained under Ext.P1 and execute an agreement within two weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioner is a registered partnership firm and it is an A-class Public Works Department contractor. Petitioner has been awarded the tender for construction of new building for the Government Industrial Training Institute, Eriyad. The tender was accepted for the quoted rate of Rs.1,11,95,363.343/-. By Ext.P1 letter issued by the 2nd respondent, petitioner was directed to produce security deposit for an amount of Rs.5,59,800/- and performance guarantee of Rs.10,36,900/- from a nationalized or scheduled Bank. It is the contention of the petitioner that, for and on behalf of the firm, the Managing Partner executed the works related to construction of Fire and Rescue Station, Eloor, Ernakulam. Ext.P2 is the completion certificate of that work. Out of the four part bills submitted for the aforesaid completed work, only two bills have been paid. The 3rd and 4th part bills amount, which remains unpaid even now comes to Rs.27,21,612/- and Rs.65,53,115/- respectively, and the same is admitted in Ext.P3 letter sent by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent.

2. That apart, it is submitted by the petitioner that, as per Ext.P4 Circular issued by the Government and Ext.P5 judgment rendered by this Court, amounts due to the contractors under completed works can be adjusted towards security deposit for new contracts awarded. Even though petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation to adjust the amount due from the Department, evident from Ext.P3, towards the security deposit for the work awarded as per Ext.P1, the same is not given a consideration by the respondents, and is insisting for production of the financial stipulations contained under Ext.P1.

3. Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit basically contending that by virtue of revised P.W.D Manual, all former circulars, including Ext.P4 has become inoperative. As per Clause 2009.6 and 7 of the revised PWD Manual, which was revised as per Government Order dated 01.02.2012, the procedure to be followed by the agreement authority has been prescribed, evident from Exts.R2(b) and R2(c) Government Order. Ext.R2(b) has been subsequently revised by Ext.R2(a) to the limited extent as stated therein.

4. Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) do not contemplate for any sort of adjustment as claimed by the petitioner. Security deposit and performance guarantee has been insisted by the 2nd respondent on the basis of Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) and in that circumstances, petitioner cannot rely on Ext.P4. The said facts as stated above were not brought before this Court while passing Ext.P5 judgment and the facts and circumstances existed therein are different and distinct. Therefore, it is contended that petitioner is not entitled to get any reliefs as sought for in the writ petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in 'State of Kerala v. Edward John' [2015 (2) KLT 967], wherein in paragraphs 10, 16 and 17, it is held as follows:

"10. The Kerala Financial Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Financial Code') contains rules relating to all financial transactions of Government which fall into two broad classes, viz., receipts and disbursements; which should be followed by every Government servant in the matter of receipt, custody and disbursement of Government money. These rules are supplementary to the rules contained in the Kerala Treasury Code and should be applied in conjunction with them. Chapter VII of the Financial Code deals with 'works'. Article 163 of the Financial Code provides that, the rules in Chapter VII are applicable to departments in General and are supplemented for particular departments by the detailed rules and orders contained in the respective department manuals and codes and any other special orders applicable to them. Article 165 provides further tha








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top