Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
B.KEMAL PASHA, J
O. RADHAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC/7310/2015
Corruption - Public Works - P.C. Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d) and 120B IPC - The court analyzed the roles of accused in approving construction estimates and extensions. No conspiracy found, with all actions supported by proper procedures and recommendations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were public engineers, were accused of conspiracy and unscientific estimate preparation in the construction of a fisheries harbour. Their roles were scrutinized during the project timeline affected by natural disasters and administrative responses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no evidence to support the allegations against the petitioners, emphasizing the proper sanctioning process and lack of involvement in critical decisions related to the project.
Issues: Whether the accused had conspired or acted improperly in the technical sanctions and extensions related to the fisheries harbour construction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners acted within their official capacities following proper recommendations and procedures, negating the allegations of unscientific estimates and conspiracy.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and all proceedings against the accused.
C O M M O N O R D E R
The petitioner in O.P.(Crl) No.122 of 2016 is the 3rd accused, the petitioner in O.P.(Crl) No.124 of 2016 is the 2nd accused and the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.7310 of 2015 is the 1st accused in V.C.No.5/15 of VACB, Malappuram.
2. The 1st accused was the Assistant Engineer in Kozhikode Harbour Division. He was functioning as such in the Ponnani Fisheries Harbour Port for the period from 11.01.2006 to 01.10.2007. The 2nd accused was the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Ponnani Harbour Division during the period in question. The 3rd accused was the Chief Engineer of the Harbour Engineering Department for the period up to 11.04.2008, on which date he was conferred with IAS.
3. There was a proposal for the construction of a Fishing Harbour at Ponnani at the mouth place, wherein Bharathapuha joins the Sea. The Government engaged the Central Water Power Research Station(CWPRS), Pune, to conduct a feasibility study and to prepare a technical report. By consuming almost 7 years, they conducted a feasibility study as well as project study, and prepared and furnished a technical report on 18.04.2001. The Government seriously considered the matter and issued administrative sanction for the construction of the Fishing Harbour, on 12.12.2001. 4. The then Assistant Engineer of the Ponnani Harbour Division prepared Ext.P3 estimate for ₹234 lakhs. At that time, the 1st accused was not at all in the picture. The estimate was submitted to the Executive Engineer through the Assistant Executive Engineer. The Executive Engineer considered the estimate and approved it and forwarded it to the Superintending Engineer. The Superintending Engineer also applied his mind and accepted the estimate and forwarded it for sanction to the Chief Engineer. At that time, the Assistant Executive Engineer was the 2nd accused and the Chief Engineer was the 3rd accused. The Chief Engineer gave technical sanction based on the estimate, on 08.12.2003.
5. The work was tendered and the work was sanctioned to the 4th accused. An agreement was executed by the 4th accused for the said work. The site was handed over to the 4th accused on 24.11.2005. The period of contract was fixed as 18 months. Since the 4th accused could not complete the work within the period, the period of contract was extended from 05.07.2007 to 23.09.2007, then from 23.09.2007 to 23.05.2008, then from 23.05.2008 to 31.12.2008, 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2009 and thereafter from
01.04.2009 to 31.08.2009.
6. In the mean time, in an unprecedented flood, the reclaimed portions of the harbour under construction were washed off, which necessitated the said works to be done again, for which sanction of additional work was necessitated. A4 approached the Government with the request for tendering additional work. The State appointed a High Power Committee on 26.11.2007 to look into the matter. The Committee, after inspection and deliberation submitted Ext.P4 report on 18.12.2007 thereby, recommending an additional work. The recommendation for additional work was accepted by the Government vide Government order dated 24.01.2008. On 11.04.2008, A3 who was the Chief Engineer, was conferred with IAS and thereby, he was transferred.
7. Since, A4 could not complete the work, he wanted to get his contract terminated 'without risk and costs' for which he approached the Superintending Engineer. The Superintending Engineer terminated the contract 'with risk and costs' on A4 vide order dated 31.03.2008. A4 approached the Government complaining about the said action of the Superintending Engineer. The Government in turn, revoked the termination and revised the rate of steel and cement. Thereafter, extension for the work was granted through Ext.P7 from 31.01.2008 to 31.03.2009, and again through Ext.P8 from 31.03.2009 to 31.08.2009. It was through Ext.P7, the termination was revoked and the rate of steel and cement was revised and the period was extended. By that time A4 could complete the work. He filed the fi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
