Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12796
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
JABIR RASHEED T. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/16300/2022
SRI.I.V.PRAMOD, SC, SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP
Court requires individual representations from contractors to ensure timely consideration and disbursement of owed amounts under public contracts.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Public Works - Execution of Contracts - Writ Petition & Payment Claims - Court underscores individual representations for timely disbursement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, public works contractors, sought payment for construction works completed for a municipality, alleging delay in payment despite partial disbursements over three years. They filed a writ petition for the release of the outstanding amounts.
Finding of the Court:
The court recognized the legitimacy of the claims but noted the submission of a single petition by multiple contractors for separate works could be problematic. It recommended the petitioners submit individual claims to facilitate the process amidst ongoing investigations.
Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable for multiple contractors and if the municipality was obligated to disburse the claimed amounts promptly.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that individual representations were necessary to ascertain the specific amounts due to each contractor and mandated the municipality to address these claims within a specified timeframe.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed; petitioners to submit individual representations for payment within three weeks.
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:
“a) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to pay the amount being part of the value of works done and materials supplied, due under Exbt-P2, P4, P6, P8, P10 and P12 final bills as expeditiously as possible within a time frame to be fixed by this court, in the interest of justice.
b) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to pay interest @ 12% on the amount due to the petitioners for the delayed period of payment.
c) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to consider Exbt-P13 representation and pass orders to disburse the amount due to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible within a time frame to be fixed by this court, in the interest of justice.
d) such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the nature of this case.” (sic)
2. The petitioners are public works contractors.
Municipality entrusted the construction of Anganwadi buildings with the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they have successfully undertaken and carried out the works. Part of the bill amount are paid. Remaining amount is not being paid despite lapse of three years and more. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4. I also heard the learned Government Pleader.
4. The counsel for the petitioners reiterated his contentions. The counsel appearing for the Municipality submitted that five contractors, who undertook six separate work, filed a single writ petition and the same is not maintainable. The counsel also submitted that part bill is already effected and some vigilance case is pending and the matter is referred to Vigilance department and that is why the delay in paying the amount due. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that at least the admitted amount may be disbursed to the petitioners.
5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the respondent. It is true that five different contractors filed a common writ petition claiming amount for six different works. But the works are in similar nature. The Municipality says that some vigilance case is pending in connection with the work. If that is so, the petitioners can submit individual representations to the 2nd and 3rd respondents for getting their admitted amount within a time frame and so that the Municipality can consider the same and pass appropriate orders and disburse, if there is any admitted amount.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:
1. The petitioners are free to submit their individual representations before the 2nd and 3rd respondents, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, demanding the amount due to them.
2. Once such representations are received, the 2nd and 3rd respondents will consider and pass appropriate orders in it and disburse the admitted amount, if any, within one month from the date of receipt of the representations.
sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE das APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16300/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR HANDING OVER THE WORK SITE TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED
08-05-2018.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF FINAL BILL APPROVED BY THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR HANDING OVER THE WORK SITE TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED
23-08-2018.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF FINAL BILL APPROVED BY THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR HANDING OVER THE WORK SITE TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED
08-05-2018.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF FINAL BILL APPROVED BY THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR HANDING OVER THE WORK SITE TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED
08-05-2018.
