Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V.MENON, J
ROHINI FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
These two writ petitions are filed challenging the steps taken by the 6th respondent Corporation in W.P(C)No.39941 of 2018 (3rd respondent in W.P(C)No.7129 of 2018) with respect to the dispute over the user fee collection at the overbridges at S.N junction, Tripunithura-Irumpanam in the Seaport-Airport road and Ponnurunni overbridge respectively.
2. The petitioner in W.P(C)No.39941 of 2018 states that he was the successful bidder for the collection of user fee on contract basis on the overbridges noticed above, awarded by the 6th respondent - a Government of Kerala undertaking. The total amount payable by the petitioner was to the extent of Rs.3,67,20,000/-, in 24 installments commencing from 01.06.2014 and ending by 16.05.2015. The contract was for a period of one year from 01.06.2014 to 01.06.2015. A bank guarantee for Rs.93,63,600/- is stated to have been furnished towards the security deposit. The petitioner contends that they were not in a position to collect the user fee on account of agitation by the regional residents associations and the local politicians, according to whom, more than sufficient collection compared to the cost of construction has already been made
The court affirmed that a Government Corporation cannot initiate recovery proceedings for defaulted installments after a Government order directing a refund on humanitarian grounds.
Recovering the arrears of bus stand fee dues from the contractor - Proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner as per demand and the requisition made thereto is after a period of 3 years as is ....
Petitioner cannot invoke writ jurisdiction for contractual disputes without public element; claims must be addressed through appropriate legal channels.
The court reaffirmed that contractual disputes with an arbitration clause are not maintainable under Article 226 unless exceptional circumstances arise, emphasizing lawful forfeiture of security for ....
The court ruled that security deposits can be adjusted against arrears, rejecting automatic forfeiture upon license cancellation, emphasizing fairness in state actions under Article 14.
The court emphasizes the necessity of considering exceptional circumstances impacting contractual obligations and mandates competent authority decisions on extension requests.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
