High Court Kerala High Court

K.M.Gopalakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 5 November, 2007

Kerala High Court
K.M.Gopalakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 5 November, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 30768 of 2007(K)


1. K.M.GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 60 YRS.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

4. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :05/11/2007

 O R D E R
                   ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
              W.P.(C) No. 30768 OF 2007 K
            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

           Dated this the 5th November, 2007

                    J U D G M E N T

This writ petition has been filed by a toll

contractor praying for a direction to respondents 2 to

4 to repair the toll bar and beam attached to toll

booth in Kavankallu Regulator cum bridge within a time

frame fixed by this Court. There is an alternate

prayer that if the repair as prayed for is not

possible, the bid amount with compensation may be

directed to be returned to the petitioner.

2. On the direction of this Court, the 4th

respondent has filed a statement in which it has been

stated that the respondents have taken effective steps

to remove the existing old cross bar and to erect a new

one. It is also stated that for getting the aforesaid

work executed a tender has been awarded to one Mohammed

Ali, E. and in terms of the conditions of such award,

the contractor is required to complete the entire work

within six months from 4-9-2007 when the site has been

WPC No. 30768/07 -2-

handed over to the contractor. According to the

respondents it is only on account of heavy rains that

the contractor could not commence the work.

3. In view of the effective steps that have been

taken by the respondents for getting the works executed

I see no necessity for issuing a further direction

regarding the awarding of work. However, the work has

to be completed expeditiously, particularly since the

contract period of the petitioner is expiring soon as

otherwise he will be loosing heavily. Therefore, the

respondents, will ensure that the work awarded to the

contractor is completed within two months from today.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-