RAJESH VARKEY v. THE STATE OF KERALA
Court: High Court of Kerala
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Kerala judgment dated 2024-02-08. RAJESH VARKEY v. THE STATE OF KERALA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TH THURSDAY, THE 8 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 19TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 25295 OF 2022 PETITIONER: RAJESH VARKEY, KARIMPANAKKAL HOUSE, PLACHIKKARA PO, PARAPPA (VIA), KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 682312. BY ADVS. C. R. SIVAKUMAR BINI. K SMT. S. SOORYA GAYATHRY RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (FINANCE) FINANCE (INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC WORKS-B) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. 2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (A) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. 3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ADMINISTRATION (ROADS & BRIDGES) PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING MUSEUM (PO) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. 4 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER ROADS & BRIDGES NORTH CIRCLE PWD ROAD DIVISION, PWD COMPLEX, MANANCHIRA (PO), KOZHIKKODE, PIN – 673001.
5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROAD DIVISION, PWD COMPLEX, PULIKKUNNU KASARGOD, PIN – 671121. *ADDL. R6. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL AG'S OFFICE COMPLEX, CANTONMENT STATION RD, STATUE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 001. -2- *(ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10-03- 2023 IN IA 1/2023 IN WP(C). BY ADV. SRI. K. V. MANOJ KUMAR, SR. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08. 02. 2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -3- JUDGMENT The controversy in this case revolves around an amount of Rs. 62,61,404/- which the petitioner claims is due to him under a contract which he has completed for the Public Works Department (PWD). 2. Interestingly, Sri. K. V. Manoj Kumar – learned Senior Government Pleader, in response to the assertions made on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel – Sri. Surya Gayathri, submitted that, as is evident from Ext.
P8, the sole reason why his client has been incapacitated to release the said amount to the petitioner is because of an Audit Objection th raised by the Office of the 6 respondent – Accountant General; and since an investigation into it is ongoing. 3. Sri. K. V. Manoj Kumar then pointed out that, as per the Audit Objection, the afore -4-amount is suspected to have been paid to the petitioner unauthorizedly and in excess; and therefore, that, unless the said proceedings are completed, it would not be possible for his client to pay such sums to the petitioner. He, however, added that, as far as the PWD is concerned, they have no other objection against payment because, the work has now been completed. 4. When I evaluate and consider the afore submissions, it is evident that the work in question is conceded to have been completed without any pending objections.
The PWD does not raise any cause against the work completed or against the final bills submitted by the petitioner; but asserts to be incapacitated to pay on account of the factum of the inquiry being continued by the Accountant General, qua the Audit Objection raised. -5- 5. Of course, the Audit Objection requires to be appropriately decided by the Accountant General, but the petitioner cannot be burdened with having to wait ad infinitum for such purpose. 6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that this Court will be justified in issuing orders fixing certain time lines, so that the interests of both sides will be sufficiently protected. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions: th (a) The 6 respondent – Accountant General, is directed to complete proceedings on the Audit Objection against the petitioner, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(b) Depending upon the decision to be taken by the Accountant General as afore, or if no -6-decision is taken by the said Authority within the time frame fixed above, the competent Authority of the PWD will release the amount in question, or eligible portions thereof, as are entitled to the petitioner, within a period of one month thereafter. (c) If the release of the amount is made on account of the factum that the Accountant General has not completed the inquiry within the time as afore, then the petitioner will be required to execute a simple self bond as security for the sum. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv -7- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25295/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE RELEVANT PART OF THE COPY OF AGREEMENT SE (K) 261/2015-16 DATED 15/12/2015 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION MEMO NO.
10 DATED 12/07/2021 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO 375/15/FIN OF FINANCE (INDUSTRIES &PUBLIC WORKS-B) DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 24/08/2015 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 07/06/2018 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER REQUEST LETTER DATED 11/09/2018 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 30/09/2021 EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 10/11/2021 EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO E5- 842/2020 DATED 24/12/2021 EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W. P. (C) NO. 14889/2020 DATED 05/02/2021 EXHIBIT10 THE TRUE COPY OF CHAPTER III ITEM 311 OF A RELEVANT PART OF THE REPORT OF THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR-GENERAL OF INDIA ON THE ECONOMIC SECTOR FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 2018
Source: High Court of Kerala. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.