State Of Kerala Represented By Its Principal Secretary vs. George Elias And Associates Represented By Its Managing Partner George Elias
Original PDF →Facts
The State filed a review petition against a judgment that relieved a contractor from a work contract without risk and cost and directed payment for completed work. The original judgment had found that a Government Order (Ext.P17) decided to relieve the contractor, which the State argued was an error as the order was conditional.
Held
The High Court acknowledged an error in its original judgment regarding the unconditional nature of Ext.P17 but found it immaterial for the outcome. It reiterated that due to public obstructions, additional work, delays, increased costs including GST, and the State's failure to obtain Forest Department permission, the contractor was entitled to be relieved and receive payment.
Key Issues
Whether the original judgment contained an error apparent on the face of the record by misinterpreting a Government Order (Ext.P17) as unconditionally relieving the contractor from contractual obligations, and if so, whether such an error warranted a review of the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The Review Petition arises out of judgment in W.P.(C) No.24848 of 2021. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein seeking to relieve him from doing a work awarded to him as per Ext.P2 without risk and cost and to further direct the review petitioners to make payments for the work done by the respondent pursuant to the agreement.
As per judgment dated 09.12.2021, this Court found that while carrying out the awarded work, people in the locality obstructed the construction work demanding : 4 : construction of retaining walls and ramps which were not part of the awarded work. The Human Rights Commission directed the review petitioners to construct retaining walls. The respondent completed the first reach of the roads and handed over the site. Regarding the remaining work, the Forest Department had issued a stop memo. The respondent was ready to complete the work but the review petitioners did not obtain permission of the Forest Department. There were no effective steps to revise the agreement.
Therefore, taking into consideration the afore facts and also noting Ext.P17 Government Order deciding to relieve the respondent from his obligations without risk and cost, this Court set aside Exts.P18, P19 and P21 orders and directed the review petitioners to make payments for the work completed by the respondent.
Alleging error apparent on the face of the records of the case, the respondents in the writ petition have filed this Review Petition.
: 5 :
Heard the learned Government Pleader representing the review petitioners.
The crux of the arguments raised in the Review Petition is that the Government had never taken a stand that the respondent had completed all the works where there was no hindrance. Ext.P17 only directed the Chief Engineer to ensure that the respondent completes all the works where there is no hindrance and to check whether sanction is not obtained from the Forest Department.
After examining the records, this Court finds that by Ext.P17, the Government had directed to relieve the respondent from risk and cost ensuring that the respondent has completed all hindrance free work and that no permission is received from the Forest Department so far. In the judgment under review, in paragraph 14, this Court has held that 'the Government has taken a decision to relieve the petitioner from his obligation without risk and cost of the petitioner'. The said finding is an error inasmuch as the said decision/direction of the Government was conditional.
: 6 :
However, this Court is of the view that the said error is not so material, warranting a review of the judgment. Because, fact remains that there were obstructions from the local public demanding construction of retaining wall. The Human Rights Commission directed the review petitioners to construct retaining wall which was done and which was not part of the agreement with the respondent. Such additional work and consequential delay warranted revision of estimates, which was not done till 09.04.2018. 9. This Court found that in the meanwhile, there was exorbitant increase in the cost of materials, fuel and labour. The GST was also increased from 4% to 12%. To top it all, the review petitioners did not take any steps to obtain permission of the Forest Department to complete the work. Therefore, the respondent cannot be burdened with the remaining contractual obligations. In the circumstances, even in the absence of any decision of the Government to relieve the respondent from contractual obligations, the respondent is entitled to relief in the writ petition filed by the respondent.
: 7 : For the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds that the Review Petition is liable to be dismissed. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/21.07.2022
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.