Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6591
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
GOPINATH P, J
M.K. AKBER – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP – Respondent
WP(C) 7646/2018
SRI.G.P.SHINOD
SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
SRI.MANU.S, SCGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP
SHRI.SAJITH KUMAR V., SC, LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION
Dispute resolution under Clause 25 of General Conditions of Contract
Headnote:
General Conditions of Contract - Dispute Resolution - The court permitted the petitioner to raise all disputes in the manner contemplated by Clause 25 of General Conditions of Contract before the competent authority
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the imposition of a penalty by the Lakshadweep Administration. The respondents contended that the dispute should be resolved with reference to Clause 25 of General Conditions of Contract for Central PWD Works.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to raise all disputes in the manner contemplated by Clause 25 of General Conditions of Contract before the competent authority.
Issues: Imposition of penalty, dispute resolution under Clause 25 of General Conditions of Contract
Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed the petitioner to resolve disputes in accordance with Clause 25 of General Conditions of Contract, as suggested by the respondents.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner the right to raise all disputes in the manner contemplated by Clause 25 of General Conditions of Contract before the competent authority.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this court challenging Exts.P28 and P30 under which a penalty of Rs.12,41,754/- has been imposed on the petitioner in respect of certain works completed by the petitioner for the Lakshadweep Administration.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents where one of the contentions taken is that the petitioner must have his dispute resolved with reference to Clause 25 of General Conditions of Contract for Central PWD Works which was applicable to the work in question and the same cannot be adjudicated, at least at this stage, in a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would be satisfied if the petitioner is permitted to raise his disputes in terms of provisions contained in Clause 25 of General Conditions of Contract.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Lakshadweep Administration has no objection in the writ petition before disposed of permitting the petitioner to raise all his disputes in terms of the provisions contained in Clause 25 of General Conditions of Contract.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel as above this writ petition will stand disposed of permitting the petitioner to raise all disputes in the manner contemplated by Clause 25 of General Conditions of Contract before the competent authority.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7646/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DATED 21.8.2012 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/4TH RESPONDENT VIDE F. NO.1/2/2009-AB-IV EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE THEREMITTANCE COUNTERFOIL DATED 27.8.2012 TOWARDS THE COST OF THE TENDER FORM.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REMITTANCE COUNTERFOIL DATED
27.8.2012 TOWARDS THE EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT.(EMD)
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE F.NO.2/15/2012-AB-IV/1912 DATED
5.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER /3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY NEGOTIATION LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE F.NO.2/15/2012-AB-IV/459 DATED
18.4.2013 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER /4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.4.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE F.NO.2/15/2012-AB-IV /1762 DATED
19.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.2.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE F.NO.2/15/2012-AB-IV/1848 DATED
11.3.2014 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF REMITTANCE DETAILS DATED 24.3.2014 TOWARDS THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25.3.2014 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE F.NO.2/15/2012-AB-IV/1904 DATED
26.3.2014 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE THEREREPRESENTATION DATED
24.5.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DATED 26.5.2014 EVIDENCING THAT THE PETITIONER HAD SENT EXHIBIT P14 REPRESENTATIONS.
EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE F.NO.19-2/34/2013-AEK/952 DATED
10.6.2014 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER/5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THEREREPRESENTATION DATED 12.6.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE JUNIOR ENGINEER/6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY THEREPRESENTATION DATED 23.7.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE JUNIOR ENGINEER /
6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY THEREPRESENTATION DATED 27.7.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE JUNIOR ENGINEER /
6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT 20 A TRUE COPY THEREPRESENTATION DATED 15.8.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE JUNIOR ENGINEER /
6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P21 A TRUE
