Mr. Julie George vs Cochin Corporation on 23 February, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 29691 of 2006(I)


1. MR. JULIE GEORGE, D/O. GEORGE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. COCHIN CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.MADHU

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :23/02/2007

 O R D E R
                             PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

                  ..........................................................

                           W.P.(C) No.29691 OF 2006

                 ...........................................................

                   DATED THIS THE 23rd FEBRUARY, 2007


                                   J U D G M E N T

Ext.P10 notice issued by the Corporation directing the petitioner

who is the contractor for the conduct of the Corporation’s comfort

station at Ernakulam market to pay the defaulted monthly payments

for the months of September and October together with penal interest

is under challenge. The petitioner has a grievance that even though it

was the obligation of the Corporation to keep the comfort station

under proper repair, in spite of several representations such Exts.P4,

P8 and P9, the Corporation has not attended to the repairs at all.

2. Heard Sri.K.P.Madhu, counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.K.Anand, counsel for the Corporation.

3. It is conceded before me that during the pendency of the Writ

Petition, the amounts demanded by the Corporation under Ext.P10 was

paid by the petitioner and therefore there is no immediate threat from

the Corporation of terminating the contract. But counsel for the

petitioner submits that it was not all legal on the part of the

Corporation to have collected penal interest from the petitioner when

the Corporation was retaining excess amounts (three months’ charges)

WP(C)N0.29691 of 2006

-2-

as advance apart from the bank guarantee of Rs.1 lakh furnished by

the petitioner.

4. I do not propose to decide the issue of the petitioner’s liability

to pay penal interest. Ext.P9 appears to be a comprehensive

representation. The Corporation will consider Ext.P9 in the light of the

various grounds raised in the Writ Petition, hear the petitioner and

take a decision on Ext.P9. Decision as directed above will be taken by

the Corporation within two months of receiving copy of this judgment.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

(PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl

WP(C)N0.29691 of 2006

-3-