High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed; directions issued for he...

Joseph John v. Kerala Water Authority and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 757 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2024-01-08
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings are set aside. The competent Authority of the KWA is directed to hear the petitioner and assess his claim that he is not liable to pay Cess under the KCWWF Act, on the basis that he only supplies materials and is not involved in construction work. Until such assessment and decision are communicated, any recovery from the petitioner’s bill towards Cess is deferred. If ultimately found not liable, the amounts already collected shall be refunded promptly. The court also directs that the relevant precedents be considered in issuing further orders.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed; directions issued for hearing and assessment; deferment of recovery; possible refund of amounts collected if not liable.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Joseph John

Respondents

  • Kerala Water Authority
  • The Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Circle, Kerala Water Authority
  • The Executive Engineer, Project Division, Kerala Water Authority
  • Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Board

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P. Shanes Methar
  • • N. Krishna Prasad

Counsels for Respondents

  • • P.M. Johny, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

Joseph John, a works contractor engaged by the Kerala Water Authority (KWA) to supply materials for pipeline works, challenges a 1% Cess deduction under the Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Act (KCWWF). He argues that he has no role in construction and thus is not liable to contribute to the fund. His claim is supported by earlier Kerala High Court decisions cited in the petition, including Poulose and Others v. State of Kerala and Others (1993 3 ILR Kerala 675) and Kerala Construction WWF Board v. State of Kerala (1995 2 KLT 724). The KWA counters that a contractor remains liable to pay Cess as long as the contract involves construction work, and that even the supply of materials may be part of construction. The judge notes a factual dispute concerning the contract's nature and emphasizes that KCWWF's ambit is well defined; liability, if any, must be determined after an assessment and hearing. Since imposing Cess unilaterally would prejudice the petitioner, the court directs the KWA to hear the petitioner, assess his claim, and determine whether he is liable; pending such proceedings, recovery is deferred. The court also directs that if the petitioner is ultimately found not liable, any collected amounts be refunded promptly, and that the cited precedents be considered in future orders.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Act (KCWWF Act)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that his role is limited to supplying materials and that he has no involvement in actual construction work; therefore, liability to pay Cess under KCWWF should not extend to him. He relies on earlier Kerala High Court decisions, Poulose and Others v. State of Kerala and Others (1993 3 ILR Kerala 675) and Kerala Construction WWF Board v. State of Kerala (1995 2 KLT 724), arguing that the fund's levy cannot be imposed without clear applicability to his contract. He requests a factual reassessment and an opportunity to be heard before any deduction is imposed.

Contentions of Respondents

The KWA argues that a contractor remains liable to pay Cess as long as the contract involves construction activity, and that even supply of materials can be treated as part of construction work. It contends that the KCWWF scheme has a well-defined ambit, and once criteria under the Act are satisfied, liability attaches. The authority asserts that there is no basis for unilateral deduction without proper assessment and hearing, and maintains that the petitioner’s claim requires examination in light of the contract's true nature.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Poulose and others v. State of Kerala and others1993(3)ILR Kerala 675Mentioned OnlyPetitioner cited it; court references the case as part of the judicial backdrop but does not apply or distinguish it in the ruling.
Kerala Construction WWF Board v. State of Kerala1995(2) KLT 724Mentioned OnlyPetitioner cited it; court notes the precedents but does not adopt or overrule it in the decision; it remains to be considered in future orders.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Joseph John v. Kerala Water Authority and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 18TH POUSHA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 757 OF 2024` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` JOSEPH JOHN, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT MONIPPILLIL HOUSE , AVOLI (PO), MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM., PIN – 686670. ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.SHANES METHAR N.KRISHNA PRASAD ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN, OBSERVATORY HILLS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033. ``` ``` 2THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686002. ``` ``` 3THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686002. ``` ``` 4KERALA CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NIRMAN BHAVAN, METTUKADA, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014. ``` ``` BY ADV.SRI.P.M.JOHNY, SC ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 757 OF 2024 ``` ``` -2- ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` The petitioner in this writ petition is stated to be Works Contractor engaged by the Kerala Water Authority (KWA). ``` ``` 2.The specific case of the petitioner is ``` ``` that he has been contracted with the ‘KWA’ only to supply materials for pipeline works being carried on by them; and that he has no ``` ``` connection with such construction work, or its ``` ``` allied performance. He argues that, obviously, therefore, no “Cess” under the Kerala ``` ``` Construction Workers Welfare Fund Act, could have been imposed against him, since the ``` ``` contract entered into by him has no relation to ``` ``` the construction work at all, or to the ``` ``` construction workers. ``` ``` 3.The petitioner says that, however, in spite of this, 1% of his bill amount is sought ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 757 OF 2024 ``` **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` to be now deducted towards “Cess” under the “KCWWF”; and consequently, that he has been constrained to approach this Court, through this writ petition. He asserts that his contentions are supported by the judgments of this Court in Poulose and others v. State of Kerala and others ``` ``` [1993(3)ILR Kerala 675] and Kerala Construction WWF Board v. State of Kerala [1995(2) KLT 724]. ``` ``` 4.Sri.P.M.Johny – learned Standing Counsel for the ‘KWA’, however, in response to the afore submissions of Sri.P.Shanes Methar – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that, since the petitioner is a contractor under the ‘KWA’, his obligation to pay “Cess” under the “KCWWF” is unmistakable and unavoidable. He argued that, as long as the petitioner is involved in construction works, he certainly has to pay “Cess” and he cannot refuse it in any manner whatsoever. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 757 OF 2024 ``` **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 5.It is luculent from the afore rival ``` ``` positions that there is factual disputation as to the nature of the contract entered into by the petitioner with the ‘KWA’. While he ``` ``` maintains that he is to only supply materials, without having any participation in the actual construction work; the ‘KWA’ appears to take the stand that, even the supply of materials is part of the construction work. ``` ``` 6.However, it must be borne in mind that ``` ``` “KCWWF” Scheme has a particular ambit to it and ``` ``` its purlieus are also well defined. It is only if all the criteria thereunder are satisfied, will the obligation of a contractor to pay ``` ``` “Cess” thereunder be attracted. ``` ``` 7.In the case at hand, as I have already ``` ``` said above, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that he only supplies materials and has no part in the construction work. If this be ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 757 OF 2024 ``` **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` so, certainly, it is a matter which the Superintendent or such other competent Authority of ‘KWA’ must consider, before imposing “Cess” upon him, through an automatic deduction from his bills. ``` ``` 8.When there is a clear factual dispute as ``` ``` afore, it would not be proper for one of the contracting parties unilaterally to impose a detriment on the other, citing that he is liable to pay “Cess”, without even making an assessment of the same and without affording him an ``` ``` opportunity of being heard. ``` ``` In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside impugned proceedings ``` ``` and direct the competent Authority of the ‘KWA’ to hear the petitioner and assess his claim, that he is not liable to pay “Cess” under the “KCWWF” Act because, they only supply materials and not concerned with the construction work. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 757 OF 2024 ``` **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` The afore shall be done, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and after assessing his contentions and the germane documentary materials; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible. This shall be done also adverting specifically to the declarations in the afore cited precedents. ``` ``` Needless to say, until such time as the ``` ``` afore is done and the resultant orders communicated to the petitioner, action to recover any amount from his Bill amounts towards “Cess” under the “KCWWF Act”, will ``` ``` stand deferred; and will be taken forward only after the said orders are communicated to him and in terms of the decisions will be arrived at. ``` **==> picture [377 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** ``` exercise, it is to be found that “Cess” under ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 757 OF 2024 ``` **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` the “KCWWF Act” cannot be imposed against the petitioner, then the amounts already collected from him under such head will be returned without any avoidable delay. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` akv ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 757 OF 2024 ``` ``` -8- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 757/2024` ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.1372/D3/2022/PHC-KTM DATED: 23.08.2022 TOGETHER WITH THE ACCEPTED SCHEDULE EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF AGREEMENT NO. 1 7 / S E / P H C K / 2 0 2 2 -2023 DATED 5-09-2022 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.10.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04- 12-2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. (C) NO. 39649 OF 2023 AND CONNECTED CASES ```