Abdul Shereeff .M vs. State Of Kerala - Kerala High Court, 03 February 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH THUR AY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 14TH MAGHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 16255 OF 2021 PETITIONER: ABDUL SHEREEFF .M AGED 54 YEARS S/O. M.A MOHAMMED KUNJU, BOSS, CHERKALA, CHENGALA P.O., KASARGODE,PIN-671 541 BY ADVS. K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON KAVERY S THAMPI RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 2 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 023 3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 023 BY ADV SHRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC SRI.APPU P S, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.16255/2021 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2022 The petitioner who has executed the work of construction of Four Bay Garage for KSRTC Vadakara Operating Centre is before this Court seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to disburse the balance amount due the petitioner with respect to construction of Four Bay Grage for KSRTC Vadakara Operating Centre. The petitioner has also sought return of Security Deposit along with 12% interest per annum from the year 2015 onwards.

The petitioner would submit that the petitioner was awarded the work of Construction of Four Bay Garage for KSRTC Vadakara Operating Centre on 18.07.2013. The petitioner completed the work entrusted to him to the satisfaction of the KSRTC. The petitioner had made a Security Deposit of `1 lakh. The petitioner submitted a final

WP(C)No.16255/2021 3 bill soon after completion of the work.

The Government sanctioned payment of bill on 24.06.2020. But unfortunately, the local MLA filed a complaint with regard to the work of the petitioner stating that the work was not satisfactory. KSRTC thereafter entrusted the Vigilance Department to conduct an enquiry. They conducted a detail enquiry and found that there is no irregularity in the work carried out by the petitioner.

Later, another complaint was filed against the petitioner. The said complaint alleged that the work in respect of the construction was not satisfactory. After taking into consideration the said complaint, the respondents effected some reduction in the amount payable to the petitioner and the payable amount was reduced. Though amount is due to the petitioner for more than 5 years, the respondents have not paid the same. The petitioner pointed out that the Government has issued Ext.P2 communication dated 24.06.2020 to the Managing Director, KSRTC stating

WP(C)No.16255/2021 4 that the final bill submitted by the petitioner can be honoured in view of the report submitted by the Chief Engineer.

The learned counsel for the KSRTC submitted that the delay in effective payment is not attributable to the respondents. After the work, a complaint was received as regards the quality of work done by the petitioner. As a Public Sector Undertaking, enquiry in this regard was needed. Accordingly, the respondents entrusted the Vigilance Department to conduct the enquiry. It is revealed that there is no deficiency in the work of the petitioner. However, in the enquiry made, it was found that there is no deficiency in the work.

The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the KSRTC is facing financial crisis and therefore amounts payable to the Contractors were not paid promptly. Taking into consideration the fact that the work was started by the petitioner in the year 2013, the amount found due to the petitioner can be paid within a period of one month. In view

WP(C)No.16255/2021 5 of the stand taken by the respondents, the writ petition can be disposed of with appropriate direction to the respondents.

Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount found due to the petitioner along with the Security Deposit within a period of one month. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to prosecute his claim for GST and interest before the respondents. N. NAGARESH JUDGE ncd/05.02.2022

WP(C)No.16255/2021 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16255/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.07.2013 Exhibit P2OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.06.2020