IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8823 of 2009(W)
1. K.A.JELTON, GOVT.CONTRACTOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,IRRIGATION
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,IRRIGATION
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/03/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 8823 OF 2009 (W)
=====================
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner claims to be a contractor. According to him, for
having executed the work of Anti Sea Erosion Work of the
Reformation and raising of damaged and sunken sea wall from
Ch.15720 m to 16283 m between CP Stone 4346 and 4349 North
of Velankanny Church in Chellanam island and Anti Sea Erosion
Work of the Reformation of damaged sea wall from Ch.12800 m
to 13511 m between CP Stone 4337 and 4340 at Kandakkadavu
in Chellanam Island – Part I- Reformation of sea wall from
Ch.12800 m to 12900 m and Ch.12930 m to 13070 m (240 m), an
amount of Rs.44 lakhs is due to him from the 2nd respondent.
2. According to the petitioner, while so, the respondents
have invited tenders by Exts.P1, P2 and P3 and he wants to
participate in respect of item Nos.2, 3 and 4 of Ext.P1, item No.2
of Ext.P2 and all the 5 items of Ext.P3 tender notice.
3. In so far as the EMD that is to be remitted in terms of
Exts.P1 to P3 are concerned, by Ext.P4, petitioner requested the
1st respondent that the same be appropriated from out of the
WPC 8823/09
:2 :
amount due to him from the 2nd respondent. According to the
petitioner, there has not been any response to Ext.P4. Petitioner
is also relying on Exts.P5 to P8 judgments rendered by this Court
directing adjustment towards EMD in similar circumstances.
4. If as stated by the petitioner, amount is due to him
from the 2nd respondent, there is no reason why the same shall
not be adjusted towards his EMD that is payable under Exts.P1 to
P3. This contention of the petitioner is fully supported by Exts.P5
to P8 judgments also.
5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
1st respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in
Ext.P4 for adjustment of the amounts due to him from the 2nd
respondent and if amount is actually due from the 2nd respondent
as contended by him, adjust the same towards the EMD that is
payable by the petitioner for the works notified in Exts.P1 to P3,
for which he intends to submit his tenders.
Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the
1st respondent for compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp