IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 3236 of 2008(I)
1. K. KURIAKOSE, AGED 69 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :28/01/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.3236 of 2008
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner submits that he was awarded the work of
improvements to Moolamattom-Kottamala road and that a formal
agreement was executed on 10.4.2001 in this behalf. It is also
stated that another work of construction of Thrissur Link Road
connecting NH-17 at Anchalkallu and Thrissur Kuttupuram State
Highway at Puzhakkal was also awarded to the petitioner in
respect of which agreement dated 19.8.2004 was executed. It is
submitted by the petitioner that on account of reasons which are
attributable to respondents the works could not be completed.
Several representations have been made by the petitioner for
payment due and also for revising the rates that were awarded.
Finally, the petitioner submitted Exts. P10 and P13 to the second
respondent requesting that the contracts be closed without claim
for damages on either side and payments be made for the work
executed. In this writ petition, what is asked for is to direct the
WPC3236/2008 2
second respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P10 and
P13 representations.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also in
the matter.
3. Having regard to the fact that Exts. P10 and P13
representations are pending consideration of the second
respondent, I direct that the second respondent shall consider
Exts. P10 and P13 and take a final decision in the matter. This
shall be done within four weeks of a production of a copy this
judgment. I also clarify that in case, considering the relief
sought for by the petitioner, it is necessary to refer the matter to
any superior authority. It will be open to the 2nd respondent to
do that as well.
The writ petition is disposed of as directed above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
csl