K. M. SALIM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ appeal is filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10921 of 2017 challenging the interim direction dated 26.02.2020 issued by the learned single Judge. The order reads thus:

(2.) The subject matter of the writ petition relates to the award of a contract to the appellant. According to the appellant, the work was completed in the year 2014. However, the respondents have failed to release the bill amount in accordance with the revised estimate. It is submitted that because of the non-sanctioning of the revised estimate by the first respondent by including the Daily Labour Report (DLR) approved and released by the competent authority, the second respondent i.e., the Chief Engineer, PWD Roads and Bridges, Thiruvananthapuram, as per Ext.P3 and P8 recommendation, directing the Chief Engineer again and again to re-submit the revised estimate for the work as per Exts.P9 and P10 by the first respondent State, appellant was constrained to file the writ petition. It is also the case of the appellant that the claim raised by the appellant for the release of '27,41,030/- covered by bill No. 595 dated 27.12.2015 in respect of the construction work of the Chethukadavu Bridge across the Kalilkavu river in Malappuram District is legally due to the appellant on the basis of Ext.P2 agreement, which is liable to be released by the respondents.

(3.) The formidable contention advanced by the appellant is that while issuing the interim order, the learned single Judge had not evaluated the sustainability or otherwise of the new proposal mentioned in the additional counter affidavit, in view of the averments of the State Government in the earlier counter affidavit to the effect that the second respondent had repeatedly submitted favourable proposals to sanction the revised estimate, and the interim order is as good as the disposal of the writ petition, without evaluating the claims raised by the appellant on the basis of the substantive right accrued on account of the correspondences issued by the Chief Engineer to the Secretary to Government and other authorities. Yet another contention advanced is that instead of directing the Chief Engineer to take a decision, the learned single Judge ought to have taken a final decision in the writ petition itself and the attempt of the learned Single Judge is to find out the details with respect to the contract awarded and was making an attempt to adjudicate the issue calling for the materials from the respective statutory authority. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the attempt of the learned single Judge is in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Others. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors, 1978 1 SCC 405, wherein it was held that "the second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out." Therefore, it is submitted that the learned single Judge went wrong in issuing the interim direction which is under challenge in the appeal.