IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14453 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.SASI ELOOR, ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR, ELOOR HOUSE, KOLENCHERRY P.O., PIN: 682311. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.MATHEW K. SIMON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DY.CHIEF ENGINEER, CIVIL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOTHAMANGALAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14453 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.8.2010 ISSUED BY THE KSEB EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.4.2011 OF --- DO ---- EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.5.2011 OF --- DO--- TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.8.2010 OF ---- DO ----- (True Copy) P.A. To Judge P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................... W.P.(C).14453/2011 ....................... Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT 1.Petitioner is a contractor who was awarded the work of excavation and construction of an underground tunnel by the KSEB. By Ext.P2 communication dated 18.4.2011, the petitioner has been required to satisfy an amount of Rs.3,66,000/- for payment of compensation to the aggrieved parties who sustained damage in connection with the work that was being performed by the petitioner, in view of the agreed stipulation and that the amount would be recovered from the next running bill of the petitioner. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was carrying out the operations pursuant to the work awarded, though there was some objection from the inhabitants nearby, alleging that their buildings were damaged to some extent; which according to th petitioner, is not true or correct. The contention of the petitioner is that the KSEB took up the matter directly and agreed to satisfy the compensation unilaterally and issued Ext.P2 order fixing the liability to the W.P.(C).14453/11 2 extent of Rs.3,66,000/- on the petitioner; which, according to the petitioner, is not correct or proper and hence is under challenge. 3.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board submits with reference to the counter affidavit filed, that the writ petition has been filed only as an experimental one; more so, when the conditions in the Agreement stand rather admitted or undisputed. There is no case for the petitioner that the conditions of contract do not stipulate for payment of damages, if at all any such damage is caused to anybody in the course of operation being pursued by the petitioner pursuant to the contract. It is also stated that the petitioner was required to rectify the defect or to pay the damages by Ext.P4 notice dated 17.8.2010. In fact, the petitioner, despite receipt of the said notice (evidently the same having produced by the petitioner himself along with the writ petition), did not choose to submit any reply; nor did he take any positive steps to cure the defects. In the said circumstances, the proceedings were finalized by the Board by issuing Ext.P2 pursuant to the findings of the Committee constituted to assess the damages, pursuant to W.P.(C).14453/11 3 Ext.P1 order dated 4.8.2010. This Court finds that no interference is warranted and the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue the grievance if any, by other appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs