High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 05 KL CK 0151

T.A Abdul Rahiman And Ors vs Project Director Project Management Unit And Ors

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 14 May 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gopinath P, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 10838 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 345 words
1.

This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

i) to call for the records relating to Exhibit P10 communication dated 21st April 2021 vide No.111/PWD004-118/PD004-

118/PD/PMUKRFB/137R/KNR/2017 issued by the 1st respondent, and a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order may be issued

directing the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit P8, Part bill and sanction the amount claimed therewith to the 2nd respondent on the strength of Exhibit

P3 Power of Attorney, which has been accepted by the 1st respondent as per Exhibit P4 order within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court ;

ii) to declare that Exhibit P3 Power of Attorney, which was accepted by the 1st respondent as per Exhibit P4 Order is still in force as valid document

as it was executed in terms of the stipulations contained in Exhibit P2 government order; AND

iii) to Grant such other order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice;

2.

Today when the matter is taken up for consideration, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing

for the respondent.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he confines his relief for a consideration of Ext.P8 as was done earlier in Exts.P6 and P7. He

submits that the respondents are not considering Ext.P8 only on the ground that it has been submitted by the power of attorney holder of the

contractor. He would also submit that earlier the respondents had accepted the power of attorney as is evident from Ext.P4 proceedings. He also

states that Exts.P6 and P7 are payment orders which have been issued on the basis of bills submitted by the power of attorney holder. In the light of

the aforesaid facts, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P8 taking note of Exts.P4, P6 and P7. Let that

be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.