Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 1156
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, L.VICTORIA GOWRI, JJ.
N.Kannan – Appellant
Versus
The Special Secretary to Government
W.A(MD) No.154 of 2023
Decided on : 31-03-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Alagarsamy
For the Respondents: Mr.Veera. Kathiravan Assisted by Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam
Government Advocate
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Power of high court to issue certain writs - Writ Appeal is preferred challenging order passed by learned Single Judge in W.P (MD) which was filed challenging letter bearing Ka.No.118m/va.pa/va.a and consequential letter bearing Ka.No./va.pa/va.a. issued by fifth respondent, quash same and consequently direct respondents to reschedule quantity of work carried out by Appellant and prepare finished level chart with help of expert committee consisting of respondents 4 and 7 and disburse amount payable to Appellant on basis of reschedule - Held, In facts and circumstances of this case, though Appellant's claim seems to be for an unreasonably high amount demanding for a supplemental agreement his right to agitate his grievance in an appropriate forum as provided by agreement contract should not be denied - More over we are conscious of fact that contract was for purpose of a public utility and it was awarded by statutory body and obligations imposed by parties in contract comes within purview of contract Act - Hence, Court are of considered view that when there is a special clause in the agreement document executed between Appellant and respondents which envisages settlement of disputes through arbitration, learned Single Judge ought to have given liberty to the contractor under said clause (J) para 69 of Agreement Document to invoke Arbitration clause of said agreement rather to approach competent civil Court to redress his grievance - Writ appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
PRAYER : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to pass an order to allow this appeal and to set aside the order passed by the Single Judge of this Court in W.P(MD)No.17152 of 2013 dated 18.11.2022 and to pass such further or other orders as this Court.
This Writ Appeal is preferred challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.17152 of 2013 which was filed challenging the letter bearing Ka.No.118m/va.pa/va.a.2/ko.46(11)/2013 dated 10.09.2013 and the consequential letter bearing Ka.No./va.pa/va.a. 2/ko.46(11)/2013 dated 03.10.2013 issued by the fifth respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reschedule the quantity of work carried out by the Appellant and prepare finished level chart with the help of expert committee consisting of the respondents 4 and 7 and disburse the amount payable to the Appellant on the basis of reschedule.
2. The Appellant/Petitioner's Counsel contended that the Appellant is a registered contractor of the Public Works Department for the past five years, who has an unblemished record. The Periyar Dam was constructed during the year 1995 and that Dam is continuously maintained by the Tamil Nadu Public Works Department. The Periyar Dam water is being utilized for power generation and drinking purposes, besides irrigation purposes through a leading channel off take at Thekkady boat landing and ends at Thekkady Head Sluice. The said leading channel was heavily silted, thereby affecting the free flow of water.
3. At the instance of the empowered Committee, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to permit the Government of Tamil Nadu to carry out the work of clearing silt and debris in the leading channel. For this purpose, the Hon'ble Supreme Court constituted a three member Committee headed by the Director of Central Water Commission. The respondents 4 and 7 were the members of the said Committee constituted for the purpose of monitoring the clearing work in the leading channel.
4. He further contended that the fifth respondent invited tender as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for carrying out the work of clearing the leading channel from Thekkady boat landing to Thekkady head sluice for ensuring the free flow of water at the estimated cost of Rs.23,50,000/-. The silting work was intended to be carried out in the deep and dense reserved forest area of Periyar Tiger Reserve within the territory of Kerala under the control of Kerala Forest Department.
5. He further contended that the fifth respondent had described the estimated quantity of work to be done in schedule 'A'. The scheduled quantity of work was mentioned in serial Nos.1 to 5 of schedule 'A'. The Appellant participated in the tender and he quoted the rate as per cubic meter. The rate quoted by the Appellant was accepted and he was declared to be a successful tenderer. The agreement signed by the Appellant for the said work was executed for the value of Rs.20,65,524/-. The fifth respondent wrote a letter dated 21.02.2013, requested the Appellant to put up a ring bund across the channel stagnating the water flow and commence the silting work. Through the Appellant's letter dated 02.03.2013, the Appellant requested the fifth respondent to hand over the site, after getting permission from the Kerala Forest Department, so as to enable the Appellant to take the vehicles, machineries and labours to carry out the work as the work spot was situated within the territory of Kerala Forest Department. On the basis of the Appellant's letter, the Junior Engineer, PWD, Section IV, Thekkady, and the Deputy Director, Periyar Tiger Reserve, Thekkady gave necessary permission for transporting the machineries and materials of the Appellant and the work site was handed over to him on 07.03.2013.
6. He further contended that the fifth respondent had sent a le
