Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
K P AHAMMED – Appellant
Versus
THE NILESHWARAM BLOCK PANCHAYAT – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 14931/2011
Writ - Road Work - Panchayath Act Section List - This judgment directs a local authority to expedite the award of pending road work contracts, asserting accountability in public works and adherence to procedural timelines.
Fact of the Case:
The petition is filed for directing the Panchayath to finalize a road work contract pending for four years, with past proceedings indicating the contractor's enhanced rate claim and the time-sensitive nature of project completion.
Issues: Whether the Panchayath should expedite the awarding of the pending road work contract and the implications of past proceedings on the contractor's claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for local authorities to adhere to procedural timeliness in public works contracts, linking contractor claims to timely administrative action.
Final Decision: The Panchayath is directed to complete the awarding process within six months.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed for a direction to the 1st respondent Panchayath to complete the road work which is pending for 4 years at the time when the writ petition was filed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a writ petition was filed by the contractor as W.P. (C). No. 13369/2008, claiming that the balance work should be permitted to be carried out by him at an enhanced rate. The said writ petition has now been disposed of by judgment dated 24.05.2013 directing the contractor to submit a representation before the Panchayath and the Panchayath was directed to consider the matter as per the prescribed procedure.
2. The fact remains that the contract in respect of balance road work to be completed, would depend upon the disposal of the representation submitted by the contractor. It is not in dispute that the contractor had completed almost 70% of the work allotted to him. He had thereafter claimed enhanced rate which was not granted by the Panchayath at the relevant point of time whereas the Panchayath wanted the contractor to complete the work at the rate fixed by them. Having regard to the fact that this Court had directed the Panchayath to consider the representation of the contractor within a period of two months, if the Panchayath decides in favour of the contractor there may not be any difficulty to start the work thereafter. However, if the Panchayath decides not to agree with the suggestion made by the contractor necessarily the Panchayath will have to cancel the contract and call for fresh tenders in the matter which apparently will take substantial time.
3. Having regard to the aforesaid factual circumstances, I direct the 1st respondent Panchayath to complete the process of awarding the work within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and thereafter ensure that the work is completed in accordance with the procedure prescribed.
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
