Back
2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30009
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
M/S.CHICAGO CONSTRUCTIONS – Appellant
Versus
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY – Respondent
WP(C)/12064/2009
SRI.G.P.SHINOD, SRI.MANU V., SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.,ORDINATORPROJECT4) THE PROJECT MANAGERPROJECT DIVISION5) THE DEPUTY PROJECT MANAGERPROJECT SUB
The appointment of an adjudicator is essential for resolving contractual disputes, thereby making further judicial review unnecessary at this stage.
Headnote:
Writ - Contractual Disputes - IFB Conditions - The court discussed the necessity of adjudication in contractual disputes, emphasizing the role of an appointed adjudicator and clauses related to contract conditions. The proper referral process was underscored for resolving disputes effectively.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ to quash decisions made by the Engineer regarding claims for additional works, and requested a mandamus for the Engineer to refer the claim to an adjudicator as stipulated in contract conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the appointment of an adjudicator to resolve the dispute and determined that the adjudicator should address all matters raised in the writ petition, including the validity of the disputed decision.
Issues: Whether the Engineer's decision regarding the petitioner's claim can be quashed and if the matter should be referred to the adjudicator as outlined in the contract conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an appointed adjudicator should address disputes arising under the conditions of the contract, indicating that further judicial intervention was unnecessary once an adjudicator was designated.
Final Decision: The writ petition was closed with leave to the appointed adjudicator to resolve the issues.
JUDGMENT
The prayers sought in the writ petition are as follows:-
(i). Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P8 and quash the same.
(ii). Issue a writ or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the second respondent to act upon Ext.P3 and refer the decision of the Engineer negativing the petitioners claim for the additional works done pursuant to Ext.P2, to the adjudicator in accordance with clause 24.1 of the 'conditions of contract' contained in Section 3 of the IFB .
(iii). Issue a mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to notify the decision of the engineer, negativing the petitioners claim expeditiously.
2. Along with I.A.13140/2011, respondents has produced order dated 21.5.2011, which reads as under:-
“Board on the direction received vide reference 2nd cited from the Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Sri.R.Sasidharan Nair Superintending Engineer (Retd) KWA and Sri. K.Padmanabhan Achari Executive Engineer (Retd) KWA were requested to inform their willingness to act as the Adjudicator for resolving the dispute between the Contractor M/s. Chicago Constructions, Thiruvananthapuram and the Engineer of the subject work as per clause 36 of the bid document. Among them Sri.K.Padmanabhan Achari Executive Engineer (Retd) KWA, Parvathy, LRA-A-63 Nettayam Thiruvananthapuram-695013 expressed his willingness for the same. The contracting firm also agreed for appointing him as Adjudicator. Under these circumstances, it is hereby informed that Sri.K.Padmanabhan Achari has been appointed as Adjudicator for the subject matter for early actions.”
3. Now that an Adjudicator has been appointed as sought for by the petitioner, it is for the Adjudicator to decide the entire issue raised in the writ petition, including regarding the validity of Ext.P8. Therefore, leaving it open to the Adjudicator to complete the adjudication, in pursuance to the aforesaid order, as expeditiously as possible, writ petition is closed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs
