High Court Kerala High Court

A.Kishore vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 6 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
A.Kishore vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 6 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 247 of 2010(E)


1. A.KISHORE, 'ANJALI',
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION),

3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :06/01/2010

 O R D E R
                T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
             ------------------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C)No.247 of 2010
             ------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a contractor by profession. The petitioner

had executed an agreement vide No.12/SE ICC/2008-09 on

27/6/2008 with the third respondent, namely the reformation of

damaged seawall in between C.P.3957 and 3959 in Kodungallur

Taluk. It is stated by the petitioner that the said work is

connected with Tsunami rehabilitation programme. It was

entrusted to the petitioner in terms of the programme involved

by the respondent.

2. It is stated that the initial period of completion of

work was extended upto February, 2010. Because of various

circumstances petitioner could not start the work. Finally

Ext.P7 notice was issued by the 3rd respondent wherein the

petitioner was informed that, if the work is not completed before

the stipulated time, i.e. 4/1/2010, the 3rd respondent is bound to

terminate the work. He was also directed to start the work with

good progress within 15 days on receipt of the letter. In answer

to Ext.P7 notice, petitioner submitted Ext.P8 pointing out

various explanations for not starting the work and not

W.P.(C)No.247 of 2009
2

completing the work within the stipulated time. He further

prays for a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P8

and take appropriate decision. There will be a direction to the

3rd respondent to take a decision in Ext.P8 after considering the

facts pointed out by the petitioner, before proceeding further.

The same will be done as expeditiously as possible.

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE

skj