IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 974 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ IN WPC.15878/2009 Dated 01/07/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.S.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.SHANKARA NARAYANA MENON, AGED 45 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, LICENCE NO.06/9899(C), RESIDING AT MURALIKA, MAMBATTA LANE, PUTHENKULANGARA, EROOR NORTH PO. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.M.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.MADHAVAN, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ENGINEER, P.H.DIVISION, KOCHI-16. 2. V.T.MATHEW, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 51 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, VELLEPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARANAKADAM, PIPELINE ROAD, THAMMANAM, KOCHI-32. ADDL.R3 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (Impleaded as per order dated 14.8.09 in COC 974/09) ADV. SRI.T.I.DANIEL FOR R2 SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR) FOR R2 SRI.M.V.BOSE FOR R1 SRI.M.DINESH FOR ADDL.R3 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- C.O.C.974/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner in W.P.(C).15878/2009 alleges contempt on the part of the Executive Engineer of the Water Authority, on the ground that notwithstanding a stay of award of the work relating to tender Nos.50/08-09, 51/08-09 and 52/08-09, the work was awarded to the contractor. The contractor proceeded to do the work in question as well, it is alleged. 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Managing Director of the Water Authority, the 3rd respondent, by the Executive Engineer, 1st respondent and by the Contractor, 2nd respondent. 3. I heard Mr.P.K.Muhammed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Dinesh, learned counsel for the Water Authority, Mr.M.V.Bose, learned counsel for the Executive Engineer and Mr.T.I.Daniel learned counsel for the Contractor, the 2nd respondent. 4. Specific stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that though an agreement was executed by the C.O.C.974/09 2 contractor in relation to the works on 19.6.2009, no work at all has been done for the works in question after taking note of the order of stay passed on 1.7.2009. It is further contended that since an order of stay was passed on 1.7.2009, 2nd respondent has not done any work in relation to the tenders, which were stayed on 1.7.2009. No materials were supplied by the Water Authority to the Contractor and no bill has been submitted. 5. This stand taken on behalf of all the respondents is recorded. It is made clear that the respondents shall proceed on the premise that no work has been done by the Contractor in relation to tender Nos.50/08-09, 51/08-09 and 52/08-09 referred to in Annexure-2 order hitherto and no work shall be done until the order of stay passed in W.P.(C).15878/2009 is modified or vacated, as the case may be. 6. In these circumstances I do not find any reason to further proceed with the Contempt of Court case. Accordingly the same is closed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs