George Mathew vs. Dr.A.Kowsigan I.A.S.
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1942 Con.Case(C).No.1994 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 15600/2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15600/2019(Y) DATED 03.07.2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER/S: GEORGE MATHEW, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O MATHEW, EDAPAZHATHIL HOUSE, MANJALLOOR, VAZHAKULAM P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 670 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SHRI.PRAVEEN S. SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G SRI.DIPU JAMES SHRI.MATHEW K.T. SHRI.GEORGE K.V. RESPONDENT/S: 1 DR.A.KOWSIGAN I.A.S., AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, HEAD OFFICE, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 2 SRI.V.PRASAD, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H. CIRCLE, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505. 3 SRI. MUHAMMED RAFI, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505. 4 SRI. SHIJITH AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, FINANCE MANAGER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. Con.Case(C).No.1994 OF 2019 2 R1-4 BY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No.1994 OF 2019 3 JUDGMENT Dated this the 21st day of August 2020 This Contempt of Court case is filed by the petitioner complaining that the directives contained in the judgment dated 03.07.2019, in W.P.(C).No.15600/2019, is not complied with.
A detailed affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent narrating the situation under which the directions contained in the judgment in its entirety could not be complied with by the Kerala Water Authority. The statement contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit are relevant to the context which read thus:
“2. It is respectfully submitted that as per judgment dated 03.07.2019 in WP(C) No.15600 of 2019,
the petitioner
had submitted a claim for an amount of Rs.21,15,229/- and admissible payment of Rs.14,38,931/- was effected to the petitioner on 20.11.2019. Theof the proceedings of the Managing Director dated 29.11.2019 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R4A.
Con.Case(C).No.1994 OF 2019 4
As per the Government Order
(P)
No.2/2018
dated 27.01.2018, the maximum GST compensation that can be given to the contractor is only 5.00 percentage in accordance with the type of work. It is humbly submitted that the difference in this case comes below the maximum of the said 5.00 percentage. However,
the petitioner contractor has already been paid 5.00 percentage which is the maximum to be paid to him. Theof which is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R4B.”
Apparently, on 27.01.2018, the State Government has passed an order, whereby, the Water Authority was liable to pay only 5% towards the GST, in accordance with the terms of the contract entered into by and between the Water Authority and any other contractor. Thereupon, after the judgment, the Water Authority has released only 5% of the amount. According to the Water Authority, though 7% was agreed to be paid to the petitioner,
Con.Case(C).No.1994 OF 2019 5 consequent to the Government Order, Water Authority could not pay the same and therefore there is no wilful or deliberate action on the part of the Water Authority in complying with the directions contained in the judgment.
Having evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar and going through the affidavit and the documents produced, I am satisfied that, there was no wilful or deliberate action on the part of the Water Authority in paying 7% of the GST to the petitioner as is agreed upon in the agreement. It is also clear that, the Water Authority could not do that since there is a clear interdiction made by the Government in respect of the payment of GST to contractors. Therefore, I do not think there is any wilful or deliberate action on the part of the Water Authority in releasing the amount.
In that view of the matter, I do not think anything survives to be considered in the contempt petition, though the payment was
Con.Case(C).No.1994 OF 2019 6 effected belatedly. Therefore, the contempt petition is closed, however leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to pursue any action if aggrieved and advised so with respect to the rest of the payment due to the petitioner on account of the GST. SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE uu 21.08.2020
Con.Case(C).No.1994 OF 2019 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1OF JUDGMENT DTD 03.07.2019 IN WP(C) NO.15600 OF 2019OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
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.