Loading...
Responsive image

C.Rafeeq vs Kuthuparamba Municipality on 12 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
C.Rafeeq vs Kuthuparamba Municipality on 12 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28564 of 2008(A)


1. C.RAFEEQ, S/O KUTTIYALI, AGED 32 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. P.R. ABOOBACKER, S/O KHADER, AGED

                        Vs



1. KUTHUPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHAIRMAN, KUTHUPARAMBA

3. K.SATHEESH KUMAR, PWD CONTRACTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :12/02/2009

 O R D E R
                               S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
                       ==================
                          W.P(C).No.28564 of 2008
                       ==================
                Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009
                               J U D G M E N T

The petitioners claim that the petitioners and others were

occupying shop rooms and conducting business in a shopping complex

owned by the 1st respondent Municipality. There was some litigation

regarding their eviction. The petitioners contend that ultimately an

agreement was reached between the petitioners and others, and the

Municipality to the effect that they would vacate the rooms on

condition that the Municipality would reconstruct the building and allot

shop rooms to the petitioners in the reconstructed building. According

to the petitioners, all the erstwhile occupiers of shop rooms had been

evicted from the premises in question pursuant to that agreement. The

grievance of the petitioners is that the Municipality has not taken any

steps to re-construct the building as undertaken by them. The

petitioners, therefore, seek the following relief:

“It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to call for the records and to issue a writ of mandamus directing
or compelling the Municipality to reconstruct the shop building as decision
as per Ext.P3 as expeditiously as possible and also allot them to the
earlier occupants like the petitioners.”

2. The contention fo the Municipality is that they had taken

appropriate steps to re-construct the building and contract for the

same was awarded to the 3rd respondent. However, the 3rd respondent

has not taken any steps to construct the building as per the contract

which prompted the Municipality to terminate the contract at the risk

2

and costs of the contractor. A suit was filed, interim orders in which

were taken in appeal before the District Court and, the District Court

has made some observations because of which the Municipality is not

in a position to continue the construction, is the sand of the

Municipality.

3. The 3rd respondent, viz., K.Satheesh Kumar, the

contractor, has filed a counter affidavit in this writ petition, in which he

has stated that although his suit challenging the termination of

contract at his risk and costs is pending, he has no objection in the

Municipality entrusting the work to any other person.

4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of

with the following directions:

In view of the statement made by the 3rd respondent in the

counter affidavit (in the counter affidavit he has referred to himself as

2nd respondent wrongly), there is nothing standing in the way of the

Municipality taking further steps to award the contract to another

person. Therefore, if the person who has quoted the next lowest rate

among the tenderers who had submitted tenders is interested in the

work, the 1st respondent shall award the contract to him and take all

steps to start the construction immediately. If the next person is not

willing to undertake the work, the 1st respondent shall invite fresh

tenders and finalise the tenders within two months from the date of

3

receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If any of the former shop

keepers who have undertaken to vacate the shop rooms are still in

possession, respondents 1 and 2 shall take steps to evict them by

resort to the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act and rules.

Sd/-

sdk+                                              S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE


          ///True copy///




                                    P.A. to Judge

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information