Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 56321
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
MUSTHAFA VARODAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/18972/2020
SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, U.K.DEVIDAS, SMT.V.JAYA RAGI, SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN, SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL), SRI.ARUN V.G.
Timely action by governmental bodies is necessary to fulfill public duty in infrastructure projects; failure to act can lead to judicial intervention to ensure compliance.
Headnote:
Writ - Mandamus - Act Section List - The court analyzed the delays in the commencement of road construction and emphasized the need for timely completion in accordance with agreements and obligations, thus invoking the principles of mandamus to ensure governmental duties are fulfilled.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ seeking to resume road work halted due to administrative objections, asserting respondents failed to comply with previous court orders to restart the project.
Issues: Whether the respondents complied with previous court orders to restart and expedite road work in light of various administrative and procedural challenges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied principles of public duty and mandamus, emphasizing that governmental bodies are required to act promptly and efficiently in executing public works.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, directing the completion of the road work by 31.5.2022.
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents to restart the work of MES College-Payyanadam Road, forthwith, without any further delay.
ii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. This Court on 23.10.2020 considered the matter and passed the following order :
“The learned Government Pleader submits that the work is on stand still on account of objection by KIIFB. The learned Standing Counsel for the KIIFB submits that as soon as the reverse project estimate is submitted by the Kerala Road Fund Board, they will permit the work to proceed.
Whatever be the objections, all the respondents shall see that the work is restarted within a period of two weeks.
Post on 16.11.2020”
3. When this writ petition came up for consideration on
16.11.2020, this Court passed the following order:
“Kerala Road Fund Board represented by its Project Director, Keston Road, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram, is suo motu impleaded as additional respondent no.10.
Despite the order passed on 23.10.2020, the respondents have not re-commenced the work. According to KIIFB, the Road Fund Board has not submitted the reverse project estimate. At the same time, it is also stated that contractor though had agreed to re-commence the work has not done anything.
In these circumstances of the case, one more week's time is granted to see that the road is made traffic worthy. All the official respondents shall see that the work is re-commenced and the road is made motorable at the earliest. Respondents would be free to take appropriate steps for that.
Post on 01.12.2020.”
4. Thereafter, this Court passed an order on 1.12.2020, which is also extracted hereunder :
“The learned counsel appearing for the KIIFB made available a copy of the proceedings dated 23.11.2020 by which the dispute between the KIIFB, KRFB and PWD has been sorted out. Now it is for the KRFB as well as the PWD to continue the work in accordance with the instructions issued by the KIIFB and expedite and complete it at the earliest. The learned Senior Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for KRFB submitted that the work has recommenced.
Post on 15.12.2020 for reporting progress.”
5. Again, the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 15.12.2020 and on that day, this Court passed the following order :
“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the work is not restarted so far and the contractor has not done anything. It is stated that stop memo is not in so far lifted. At the same time, the learned Standing Counsel for the KIIFB on the strength of Ext.R2(j) produced along with the counter affidavit submits that suspension is already revoked. Ext.R2(j) issued by the Chief Project Examiner-Inspection Authority of KIIFB states that in exercise of his powers under Clause 12 of the tripartie agreement he has accorded approval to revoke the instruction for suspension of work with immediate effect subject to the 5 following conditions:
1. Inspection Authority (Technical), KIIFB shall inspect the work for ensuring the correctness of compliance report and to monitor the status of pre- compliance report submitted.
2. Modified/corrected PED including strip plans along with revised estimate concurred by TS authority shall be submitted within 15 days from the date of issue of this letter.
3. Close monitoring of the progress and quality of the project shall be ensured by KRFB and fortnight report of same shall be sent to Inspect Authority without fail.
4. Relevant contractual clauses for imposing penalty shall be applied to the contractor for the delay caused due to unjustified delay in the work.
5. The revised time frame for completion of the project shall be prepared and submitted by KRFB.
Therefore respondents 4, 5 and 6 shall see that work is undertaken and the road is made motorable at the earliest
