Back
2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46746
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
KRISHNANKUTTY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/3843/2009
SRI.R.MANOJ, SMT.INDIRA RAVEENDRAN, SRI.P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI
The court established that payment for work executed must be assessed independently of claims against the contractor.
Headnote:
Contractor - Work Execution - None
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a contractor, was awarded a project but faced issues regarding the validity of a security document and allegedly abandoned the work, leading to termination and claims against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that there may be funds due to the petitioner for work completed, despite claims of abandonment, and instructed assessment for any payable amounts.
Issues: Whether any payment is due to the petitioner for work executed, despite the claims of termination and abandonment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court indicated that the assessment of payable amounts should consider what work has been completed, irrespective of the alleged deficiencies in execution.
Final Decision: The court directed the assessment of any due payment to the petitioner for work executed.
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Petitioner claims to be a contractor. By Ext.P1, he was awarded the work of improvement and chipping in Amboori-Mayam road in Thiruvananthapuram district. Subsequently, controversy arose regarding the genuineness of the Kisan Vikas Patra that was produced by the petitioner as security and based on a complaint made by the Department, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner which is also pending.
2. Meanwhile, according to the respondents, the work which was only partially executed was abandoned by the petitioner. It is also alleged in the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not co-operate either in completing the work or even in measuring the work which was already done. As a result, finally, the work itself was terminated at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Counter affidavit further W.P.(C) No.3843/2009 states that the petitioner was also blacklisted as per the Superintending Engineer's order dated 19.12.2006.
3. It is while so that the writ petition was filed, seeking an order requiring the respondents to quantify the work done by the petitioner and to pay him the amount that is due for the work executed. However, from the counter affidavit what is seen is that towards the risk and cost element as also the `
value of the security, a total of 13 lakhs is due from the petitioner and for the work executed this much amount will not be due to him.
4. Irrespective of the controversy, for the work executed by the petitioner, if any amount is due to him in excess of the amount that is to be withheld towards the risk and cost element, there is no reason why such admitted amount, if any, should not be released to the petitioner. The question whether any such amount is available to be released is a matter which only the fourth respondent or his subordinates can assess and quantify.
W.P.(C) No.3843/2009
5. Therefore, I direct the fourth respondent to assess as to whether for the work executed by the petitioner any amount is available in excess of the amount that is due towards the risk and cost element or any other liability of the petitioner in connection with Ext.P1. On such assessment, if any amount is found to be due, such amount shall be released to the petitioner. This shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
