KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY Vs. P.P.AJITHKUMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under Sec. 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No.30648 of 2012 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dtd. 29/2/2024 in the writ petition.

(2.) The 1st respondent herein is a PWD contractor, who successfully secured the construction work of the first Phase of 'Kothamangalam Municipal Bus Stand' from the 1st appellant Municipality, by quoting the lowest rate and subsequently by reducing it on negotiation. Accordingly, Ext.P1 agreement dtd. 9/3/2009 was entered into between the 1st respondent and the Municipality. According to the 1st respondent, the work could not be commenced immediately after the execution of Ext.P1 agreement due to reasons beyond his control. The initial work, such as the excavation of soil, was done under the supervision of the Assistant Engineer of the 1st appellant. At that time, it was found that against the total quantity of 660 M3 earth work excavation specified in the schedule to the agreement, around 13000 M3 of earth work excavation had to be done. Similarly, it was found that since hard rock was noticed beneath the soil, around 5000 M3 of rock blasting had to be done at the site. The Assistant Engineer reported this to the Municipal Engineer, who in turn reported the same to the 2nd appellant Secretary and subsequently, the matter was placed before the Chairperson of the 1st appellant Municipality. The then Chairperson of the 1st appellant Municipality granted sanction for carrying out earth work excavation of 13900 M3 and medium rock blasting of 1900 M3 by the 1st respondent as extra items by invoking the emergency power conferred on him under Sec. 15(4) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (the 'Municipality Act' in short).

(3.) In the impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge found that the 1st respondent is entitled for the additional work carried out by him and if any illegality is committed by the Chairperson by not placing the matter before the Municipal Council, the Chairperson or the Municipality has to suffer and the 1 st respondent cannot be penalised for the same. Having found so, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following directions: