IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RFA.No. 286 of 2006(E) --------------------------------- OS.226/1998 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS DIVISION, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMANAND RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------- JOSEPH THOMAS, CONTRACTOR, PAZHATHUMOOTTIL HOUSE, AGALI P.O., PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.MEIJO KURIAN PUVATHINGAL SMT.PREMY MEIJO THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2010, ALONG WITH RFA NO. 260 OF 2009 RFA NO. 431 OF 2006 RFA NO. 432 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss ORDER ON IA. NO.1547/2006 IN RFA. NO.286/2006 DISMISSED 30/11/2010 SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE SD/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- R.F.A.Nos.286, 431 & 432 OF 2006 AND 260 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.These bunch of appeals filed by the State of Kerala are against decrees passed on suits filed by a contractor. The crux of the issue which is germane for decision in these appeals is as to whether the court below was justified in granting decrees for refund of the retention amounts, the security deposits as also the balance amounts due under the final bill. There is no legal argument advanced as regards the final bill amount as decreed by the court below. There is also no factual dispute because the final bills are built on the basis of 'M Book' measurements, duly certified. We do not find any ground to interfere with the decree as regards the final bill amounts. 2.In so far as the retention amounts and security deposits are concerned, the plea raised in the appeals and advanced as RFA.286/06 & con. Cases. 2 argument is that the contractor had failed to complete the works and had, essentially, abandoned the sites, though he had been repeatedly asked to continue with the works. This stand of the State in the appeals stands contradicted by Exts.A1 and A2 which documents have crucial importance and have been considered by the court below. It appears that the plaintiff, a Class I PWD contractor, was awarded different works. In relation to one of the works, there were some disputes as to whether the work done had dropped in quality. He was issued an order blacklisting him. He came to this Court filing O.P.8710/95 challenging the blacklisting. In answer to the allegations in that writ petition, the State of Kerala, through the Additional Chief Secretary, filed a counter affidavit justifying the issuance of the order of blacklisting. In paragraph 8 of that counter affidavit which is Ext.A2, it is stated as follows: “It is submitted that the petitioner has been ordered to stop construction of other works awarded to him as a precautionary measure. The RFA.286/06 & con. Cases. 3 action has been in public interest. It is submitted that the amounts due to the petitioner in respect of other works which have been awarded to him is with-held pending finalisation of his liabilities in respect of the construction of the Nellipuzha Bridge for which there is provision in the agreement executed by the petitioner. As a precautionary measure, it has been directed not to allow the petitioner to bid for any other work. It is a fact that the petitioner has been awarded the following works which are at varying degrees of progress:- ...............................................” 4.The State of Kerala stood to assert that the petitioner was ordered to stop construction of other works awarded to him as a precautionary measure and the action taken was in public interest. The stand now taken is that he was not required to stop the construction. This plea, essentially, is contradicted by the State Government's document Ext.A2. Under such circumstances, we do not find any legal or formal infirmity in the impugned decrees passed on the basis of a common judgment. The appreciation of evidence by the court below RFA.286/06 & con. Cases. 4 reflects that Exts.A1, A2, A3 and other relevant materials have been appropriately considered and decision rendered on the basis of the evidence on record. With these, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned decrees. In the result, these appeals fail. They are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.30/11.