{"id":192673,"date":"2008-04-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008"},"modified":"2018-01-26T03:39:40","modified_gmt":"2018-01-25T22:09:40","slug":"geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"Geo-Tech Construction Company … vs Kerala State Construction … on 11 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Geo-Tech Construction Company … vs Kerala State Construction … on 11 April, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 29878 of 2002(F)\n\n\n1. GEO-TECH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT.LTD.,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. GENERAL MANAGER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN\n\n Dated :11\/04\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                        P.N.Ravindran, J.\n                      =============\n                     O.P.No.29878 of 2002\n                     ===============\n\n            Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008.\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioner is a company incorporated under the<\/p>\n
Companies Act, 1956.\n<\/p>\n
      2. In the year 1998, the State Government decided to make<\/p>\n
Sultan Canal having a length of 3.85 kms, which connects<\/p>\n
Kuppam river in the south and Palakode river in the north,<\/p>\n
navigable. The work envisaged dredging of the entire length of<\/p>\n
the canal and side protection for a length of 1100 mts. using RCC<\/p>\n
piles and slabs. By G.O.(Rt)No.16\/98\/CSIND dated 6.8.1998, the<\/p>\n
State Government granted revised administrative sanction for the<\/p>\n
work and entrusted the work to the Kerala State Construction<\/p>\n
Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation” for<\/p>\n
short, with permission to get the work executed through sub<\/p>\n
contractors.     The Corporation thereupon entered into an<\/p>\n
agreement dated 2.9.1998 with the Superintending Engineer,<\/p>\n
Irrigation Circle, Kozhikode. The site of the work was handed<\/p>\n
OP 29878\/02                     -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
over to the Corporation on 24.9.1998 and the work had to be<\/p>\n
completed within five months therefrom. The Corporation sub-<\/p>\n
contracted the work to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     3. While the work was in progress, it was found necessary<\/p>\n
to carry out some additional works and the Chief Engineer<\/p>\n
sanctioned a revised estimate of Rs.3,25,73,061\/- vide order<\/p>\n
dated 30.7.2004.      As the Corporation could not complete the<\/p>\n
work in time, the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle,<\/p>\n
Kozhikode granted extension of time upto 15.5.2000 imposing a<\/p>\n
fine of Rs.1,30,333\/-. In the meanwhile the State Government<\/p>\n
decided to take up Phase II of the work of improving the Sultan<\/p>\n
Canal and by G.O.(Rt) No.3\/2000\/CSIND dated 27.1.2000 the<\/p>\n
State Government granted administrative sanction for the said<\/p>\n
work.    Thereupon Phase II of the work was awarded to the<\/p>\n
Corporation. The Corporation sub-contracted the said work also<\/p>\n
to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     4. The petitioner has in this original petition contended that<\/p>\n
it has completed the work in both the phases and that as per<\/p>\n
Ext.P6 bill prepared by the officers of the Corporation Rs.50.55<\/p>\n
lakhs is due to it in respect of Phase I and Rs.23.76 lakhs is due<\/p>\n
OP 29878\/02                       -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
to it in respect of Phase II.        The petitioner has also claimed<\/p>\n
interest on the said amounts at 18% per annum. The petitioner<\/p>\n
relies on Ext.P11 certificate dated 31.1.2006 issued by the<\/p>\n
Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Kozhikode wherein the<\/p>\n
said officer had certified that Phase I of the work awarded to the<\/p>\n
Corporation as per the agreement dated 2.9.1998 has been<\/p>\n
carried out according to the specifications and completed<\/p>\n
satisfactorily. Ext.P11 further states that no noticeable defects<\/p>\n
were found during inspection.            The petitioner also relies on<\/p>\n
Ext.P12 certificate dated 24.3.2001 issued by the Regional<\/p>\n
Manager of the Corporation at Kannur to the effect that the work<\/p>\n
awarded to the petitioner has been completed within the agreed<\/p>\n
time of completion. The grievance put forward by the petitioner<\/p>\n
in this original petition is that though the work awarded to it by<\/p>\n
the Corporation has been completed, the money due and payable<\/p>\n
for the work done has not been disbursed. The petitioner has in<\/p>\n
this original petition prayed for the following reliefs:<\/p>\n
            “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or other<\/p>\n
      appropriate     writ   order     or   direction  directing<\/p>\n
      respondents to pay to the petitioner the amounts due<\/p>\n
OP 29878\/02                    -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
      under Ext.P1 to P4 and demanded under Ext.P6<\/p>\n
      forthwith along with interest at the rate of 18% per<\/p>\n
      annum from the date of Exts.P1 to P4.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other<\/p>\n
      appropriate   writ  order     or  direction  directing<\/p>\n
      respondents not to effect any payment to any<\/p>\n
      contractor without first paying the dues of the<\/p>\n
      petitioner covered by Exts.P1 to P4 and demanded<\/p>\n
      under Ext.P6.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1<\/p>\n
and 2 it is contended that the petitioner has not completed the<\/p>\n
work and therefore, the work had to be rearranged and got done<\/p>\n
through other contractors.    It is also submitted that the final<\/p>\n
settlement of accounts between the parties can be had only after<\/p>\n
the work is completed and the expenditure involved and the loss<\/p>\n
sustained by the Corporation are assessed. As regards Phase I of<\/p>\n
the work, it is submitted that the petitioner did not complete the<\/p>\n
work within the agreed time frame of 152 days from 10.8.1998.<\/p>\n
As regards Phase II, it is submitted that the petitioner did not<\/p>\n
complete the work before 15.12.2000.        The counter affidavit<\/p>\n
proceeds to state that the petitioner has committed breach of the<\/p>\n
contract and that final settlement of the accounts can be arrived<\/p>\n
OP 29878\/02                     -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
at only after the loss sustained by the Corporation for re-<\/p>\n
arranging the work through other contractors is estimated and<\/p>\n
assessed.     The Corporation also contends that this original<\/p>\n
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking<\/p>\n
payment for the work done is not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
      6. When the original petition came up for hearing on<\/p>\n
14.3.2004, this Court on noticing that there is conflict between<\/p>\n
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation and the<\/p>\n
completion certificate evidenced by Ext.P12, passed the following<\/p>\n
order:\n<\/p>\n
            “Secretary    to  Govt.,   Dept.   of  Irrigation,<\/p>\n
      Trivandrum, is made addl. respondent. Since there<\/p>\n
      is direct conflict between the counter affidavit filed by<\/p>\n
      the General Manager of the first respondent, which is<\/p>\n
      a Govt. Corporation and the completion certificate,<\/p>\n
      Ext.P12, issued by the Regional Manager, Kannur of<\/p>\n
      same company, I direct the addl. respondent<\/p>\n
      (Secretary to Govt.) to conduct enquiry and file a<\/p>\n
      counter affidavit in this court within ten days from<\/p>\n
      now stating as to who and what is correct. If the<\/p>\n
      Secretary finds that there is foul play or manipulation<\/p>\n
      by any official of the Govt. Corporation, he will order<\/p>\n
      vigilance enquiry and report the matter to this<\/p>\n
OP 29878\/02                     -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
      Court.”\n<\/p>\n
      7. Pursuant to the said direction, the Director of Inland<\/p>\n
Navigation, issued Ext.P13 letter to the General Manager of the<\/p>\n
Corporation and the Managing Director of the petitioner<\/p>\n
company calling upon them to appear before him on 18.6.2007<\/p>\n
for a personal hearing. Ext.P14 discloses that there was also a<\/p>\n
joint inspection of the work site on 28.6.2007.<\/p>\n
      8. As directed by this Court in the order passed on<\/p>\n
14.3.2007, referred to above, the Principal Secretary to<\/p>\n
Government, Water Resources Department filed an affidavit<\/p>\n
dated 6.9.2007 stating that the Chief Technical Examiner has<\/p>\n
after conducting an enquiry submitted a report recommending<\/p>\n
vigilance enquiry. A copy of the report is produced as Ext.R1(a)<\/p>\n
along with the said affidavit. It is also stated that in the light of<\/p>\n
the opinion of the Chief Technical Examiner, the Government<\/p>\n
have already ordered a vigilance enquiry in the matter and that it<\/p>\n
is underway.     On an application filed by the petitioner as<\/p>\n
I.A.No.3212 of 2008, I had by order passed on 7.3.2008 directed<\/p>\n
the third respondent to produce the report submitted by the<\/p>\n
Director of Inland Navigation          pursuant to the inspection<\/p>\n
OP 29878\/02                    -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
conducted by him on 28.6.2007. Though the report submitted by<\/p>\n
the Director of Inland Navigation has been placed on record along<\/p>\n
with a memo dated 14.3.2008 filed by the learned Government<\/p>\n
Pleader Sri.K.Sandesh Raja, the learned Government Pleader<\/p>\n
appearing   for   the   third respondent   submitted   that   the<\/p>\n
Government have not accepted the said report and that in view<\/p>\n
of the report submitted by the Chief Technical Examiner, no<\/p>\n
reliance can be placed on the said report.\n<\/p>\n
     9. I heard Sri.M.K.Damodaran, the learned senior counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioner, Sri.M.V.Thamban, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.K.Sandesh<\/p>\n
Raja, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the third<\/p>\n
respondent.     Sri.M.K.Damodaran, the learned Senior Counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioner contended with reference to Exts.P11<\/p>\n
and P12 and the report submitted by the Director of Inland<\/p>\n
Navigation pursuant to the joint inspection held on 28.6.2007<\/p>\n
that the work has been completed in all respects and therefore<\/p>\n
the Corporation is not justified in withholding payment. The<\/p>\n
learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that at least<\/p>\n
as regards Phase I, the Corporation cannot have any objection for<\/p>\n
OP 29878\/02                      -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the reason that Ext.P11 certificate is issued by the agreement<\/p>\n
authority, namely, the Superintending Engineer.          The learned<\/p>\n
senior counsel submitted that the Superintending Engineer,<\/p>\n
Irrigation Circle, Kozhikode has in Ext.P11, certified that Phase I<\/p>\n
of the work has been carried out according to the specifications<\/p>\n
and has been completed satisfactorily and that no noticeable<\/p>\n
defects were found on inspection. The learned Senior Counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner also relied on the report submitted by the Director<\/p>\n
of Inland Navigation to contend that the findings therein entitle<\/p>\n
the petitioner to claim the reliefs sought in this original petition.<\/p>\n
      10. Sri.M.V.Thamban and Sri.K.Sandesh Raja, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in the light<\/p>\n
of the findings in the report submitted by the Chief Technical<\/p>\n
Examiner and the State Government’s decision to order a<\/p>\n
vigilance enquiry into the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to<\/p>\n
any relief in this original petition. They also contended that the<\/p>\n
contract in the case on hand is not a statutory contract and<\/p>\n
therefore this original petition filed under Article 226 of the<\/p>\n
Constitution seeking payment for the work is not maintainable.<\/p>\n
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also<\/p>\n
OP 29878\/02                    -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
submitted that in view of the report submitted by the Chief<\/p>\n
Technical Examiner, no reliance can be placed on the report<\/p>\n
submitted by the Director of Inland Navigation.<\/p>\n
     11. I have considered the rivalcontentions. The Chief<\/p>\n
Technical Examiner has in his report dated 22.9.2007 [Ext.R3(a)]<\/p>\n
observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           “2. The completion certificate issued by the<\/p>\n
     Regional Manager, KSCC, Kannur is also not found<\/p>\n
     bonafide as explained in paras 1,2,3,4,75.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           3. As explained in para 6 it is noted that<\/p>\n
     proportionate amount has not been transferred to<\/p>\n
     M\/s. Geo Tech by KSCC for the work executed.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           4. The Chief Engineer has already reported that<\/p>\n
     the work in total has not yet been completed which<\/p>\n
     was found to be true in site inspection as explained in<\/p>\n
     para 2.2.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           5. In view of all the above facts, a detailed<\/p>\n
     Vigilance Enquiry into the execution of the above<\/p>\n
     work as advised by the Hon’ble High Court may be<\/p>\n
     considered to bring out any foul play or manipulation<\/p>\n
     and also to fix the responsibility.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     12. The report submitted by the Chief Technical Examiner<\/p>\n
discloses that it was prepared after enquiry and site inspection.<\/p>\n
OP 29878\/02                     -: 10 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
The Chief Technical Examiner has in paragraph 2 thereof noticed<\/p>\n
irregularities in the execution of the work. He has also expressed<\/p>\n
a doubt as to whether canal would be navigable. He has also<\/p>\n
noticed overlapping of the dredging work. The Chief Technical<\/p>\n
Examiner has reported that the work in total has not been<\/p>\n
completed and that the report in that regard submitted by the<\/p>\n
Chief Engineer is true. The Chief Technical Examiner has in view<\/p>\n
of his observations and findings recommended a detailed<\/p>\n
vigilance enquiry into the execution of the work awarded by the<\/p>\n
Corporation to the petitioner. This Court had in the order passed<\/p>\n
on 14.3.2007 directed that if the Secretary to Government finds<\/p>\n
that there is foul play or manipulation by any official      of the<\/p>\n
Government\/ Corporation, he will order vigilance enquiry into the<\/p>\n
matter.     The State Government has accordingly ordered a<\/p>\n
vigilance enquiry and it is in progress. In that view of the matter<\/p>\n
and having regard to the findings in Ext.R3(a) report submitted<\/p>\n
by the Chief Technical Examiner, I am of the considered opinion<\/p>\n
that at this stage, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. It is<\/p>\n
certainly not in public interest to direct payment for the work<\/p>\n
done, when there is serious dispute between the parties as<\/p>\n
OP 29878\/02                   -: 11 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
regards the question whether the work has been completed and if<\/p>\n
so, whether it was done in terms of the agreement. The work<\/p>\n
was awarded by the State Government to the Corporation and by<\/p>\n
the Corporation in turn to the petitioner to render Sultan Canal<\/p>\n
navigable. Therefore, the work in question is of considerable<\/p>\n
public importance. In these circumstances, I hold that the<\/p>\n
petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this original petition.<\/p>\n
However, I am of the opinion that the vigilance enquiry cannot be<\/p>\n
unduly delayed. I had during the course of hearing ascertained<\/p>\n
from the learned Government Pleader the time frame required for<\/p>\n
completing the vigilance enquiry. Sri.K.Sandesh Raja, the learned<\/p>\n
Government     Pleader   appearing    for the  third   respondent<\/p>\n
submitted that the State Government would require a minimum<\/p>\n
period of one year to complete the vigilance enquiry. Having<\/p>\n
regard to the fact that the work is of        considerable public<\/p>\n
importance and the fact that any delay in completing the<\/p>\n
vigilance investigation will be detrimental to public interest, I<\/p>\n
direct the State Government to take such steps as are necessary<\/p>\n
to complete the vigilance enquiry within six months from today.<\/p>\n
I make it clear that I have not pronounced upon the entitlement<\/p>\n
OP 29878\/02                    -: 12 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
of the petitioner to receive payment for the work done. It will be<\/p>\n
open to the petitioner to initiate other appropriate proceedings<\/p>\n
seeking for payment for the work done after the vigilance enquiry<\/p>\n
is completed.\n<\/p>\n
     Subject to the above observations, this original petition is<\/p>\n
dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                           P.N.Ravindran,
\n                                           Judge.\n<\/p>\n
ess 2\/4<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Geo-Tech Construction Company … vs Kerala State Construction … on 11 April, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 29878 of 2002(F) 1. GEO-TECH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT.LTD., … Petitioner Vs 1. KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, … Respondent 2. GENERAL MANAGER, For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN The Hon’ble […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-192673","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGeo-Tech Construction Company ... vs Kerala State Construction ... on 11 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Geo-Tech Construction Company ... vs Kerala State Construction ... on 11 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-25T22:09:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Geo-Tech Construction Company … vs Kerala State Construction … on 11 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-25T22:09:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2193,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008\",\"name\":\"Geo-Tech Construction Company ... vs Kerala State Construction ... on 11 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-25T22:09:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Geo-Tech Construction Company … vs Kerala State Construction … on 11 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Geo-Tech Construction Company ... vs Kerala State Construction ... on 11 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Geo-Tech Construction Company ... vs Kerala State Construction ... on 11 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-25T22:09:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Geo-Tech Construction Company … vs Kerala State Construction … on 11 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-25T22:09:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008"},"wordCount":2193,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008","name":"Geo-Tech Construction Company ... vs Kerala State Construction ... on 11 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-25T22:09:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/geo-tech-construction-company-vs-kerala-state-construction-on-11-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Geo-Tech Construction Company … vs Kerala State Construction … on 11 April, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192673","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=192673"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192673\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192673"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192673"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192673"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}