Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6895
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHAJI P.CHALY, J
WILSON PAULOSE – Appellant
Versus
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 3342/2017
The court underscored the necessity of following contractually established redressal mechanisms for resolving disputes related to payment.
Headnote:
Contractor - Contract Dispute - Grama Sadak Yojana - Ext.P8, Ext.P9 - The court identified the necessity for the in-house redressal mechanism in the agreement, mandating the respondents to address the petitioner's representation in the context of contract performance and payment disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an 'A' class contractor, completed construction and maintenance work under a government scheme but faced non-payment for submitted bills. The petitioner requested action on submitted representation, asserting the existence of an agreed dispute resolution process.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the petitioner's argument regarding the existence of an internal mechanism for dispute resolution as outlined in the agreement. It ordered the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation within a specified timeframe.
Issues: Whether the respondents were obligated to address the petitioner's submitted representation for payment under the contractual agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the agreed-upon dispute resolution mechanisms in contractual agreements, underscoring the duty to consider representations within the specified processes.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to address the petitioner's representation within two months.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is an 'A' class contractor, who was awarded with contract work for the construction and maintenance of three roads under the Prime Minister's Grama Sadak Yojana Scheme of 2005-2007, package No.K-02-06 of Mulanthuruthy Block in Ernakulam District. According to the petitioner, petitioner has completed the work and done the maintenance works also. However, the bills submitted by the petitioner is not paid. Consequent to which petitioner has submitted Ext.P9, however, no action is initiated to release funds to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P8, which is a portion of agreement executed by and between the petitioner and the respondents, an in-house redressal mechanism is provided. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is duty bound to consider Ext.P9 representation submitted by the petitioner.
2. I find force in the contention raised by the petitioner.
From Ext.P8 it is discernible that, when there is a dispute arising by and between the parties, the same is to be redressed as per the provisions provided therein.
3. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to take on board Ext.P9 and arrive at a final conclusion within two months form the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or any other interested or affected persons.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
