S.Priya vs. Biju.D - Kerala High Court, 08 August 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY THUR AY, THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1941 Con.Case(C).No.1284 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 2003/2009 AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 2003/2019(A) DATED 05.04.2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER/S: S.PRIYA, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O. SUKUMARAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S. DEVIKA CONSTRUCTIONS, 10 B-SREEDHANYAHEAVENS, AMBALAMUKKU, PEROORKADA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005 BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN SRI.V.R.RAJESH SMT.BHANU THILAK RESPONDENT/S: BIJU.D, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KUTTANAD DEVELOPMENT CIRCLE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA - 689 121 BY SMT. VINITHA B., GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.08.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).2003/2019(A), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Con.Case(C).No.1284 OF 2019 2 JUDGMENT This Contempt of Court case is filed complaining that the interim order passed by this court on 05.04.2019, is not complied with.

An affidavit is filed by the respondent stating that, whatever amounts admitted as per part 3 bill, was paid to the petitioner and it is stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit as follows: “It is submitted that in Exhibit P6 Serial No.12 that is filling and forming outer bund with contractors own good quality gravel earth cut and conveyed from available place is one of the item to be paid. As per agreed schedule of items of work item bearing No.32 which is part of the contract, the rate for one m3 of the said item is Rs.787.80.of the relevant pages of the agreed schedule is produced as Annexure R1(a). It is submitted that the Assistant Engineer had prepared and submitted the bill to the Assistant Executive Engineer who checked the bill and submitted to Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Chengannur who audited the bill initially, committed the mistake by incorporating Rs.7878/- instead of the mutually agreed rate of 787.80/- for this part item of work. As a result there was an amount of Rs.39,54,716/- was certified initially instead of the eligible amount of Rs.36,87,186/-. But after statutory recovery

Con.Case(C).No.1284 OF 2019 3 and deduction towards income tax welfare fund, GST, retention, etc., the net amount to be paid to the petitioner was found as 28,04,137/- instead of 30,31,510/- as stated in para 9 of the counter affidavit. This mistake was found out on inspection at the time of effecting payment. The same correction was carried out in the CC 3rd and part bill and arrived as Rs.28,04,137/- being the amount to be paid to the petitioner. The relevant pages of the corrected certified bill is produced as Annexure R1(b).”

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that, since the admitted amounts are already paid to the petitioner, and even according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the said amount was received on 02.07.2019, I do not think anything survives to be considered in the Contempt petition. Therefore, the contempt petition is closed, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to take up all contentions in the writ petition. SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE uu 08.08.2019

Con.Case(C).No.1284 OF 2019 4 APPENDIX OF Con.Case(C) 1284/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 05/04/2019 IN WP(C) NO. 2003/2019