High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed; impugned proceedings set...

Joseph John v. Kerala Water Authority and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 747 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2024-01-08
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition allowed. The impugned proceedings are set aside. The competent KWA authority is directed to hear the petitioner and assess whether he is liable to pay Cess under KCWWF, considering that he only supplies materials and is not involved in construction, with an opportunity to be heard and based on germane documents. If it is found that Cess cannot be imposed, the amounts collected will be returned without delay. Until the assessment and order are communicated, recovery of any amount from the petitioner’s bill toward Cess is deferred.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed; impugned proceedings set aside; KWA directed to determine, after hearing, whether the petitioner is liable to pay Cess; deferment of recovery pending order; if KCWWF cannot be imposed, amounts already collected to be returned.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • JOSEPH JOHN

Respondents

  • KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
  • THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER P.H CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY KALMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD
  • THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD
  • 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

The petitioner, Joseph John, a works contractor engaged by the Kerala Water Authority (KWA), contends that he was contracted only to supply materials for pipeline works and had no role in construction, and therefore cannot be liable to pay Cess under the Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund (KCWWF) Act. He argues that deducting 1% of his bill towards Cess is without basis since his contract does not involve construction work, and cites earlier Kerala High Court rulings (Poulose v. State of Kerala and Others; Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Board v. State of Kerala) to support his position. The respondent KWA maintains that as long as the petitioner is involved in any form of construction activity, the obligation to pay Cess under the KCWWF is clear and automatic; even the supply of materials may be considered part of construction work, thereby attracting liability. The court observes that there is a factual dispute about whether the petitioner’s contract involves actual construction work or merely materials supply, and emphasizes that the KCWWF Scheme has defined ambit and conditions for Cess. The judge directs a hearing by the KWA to assess the petitioner’s contentions and the evidence, and to determine whether Cess can be imposed; until a decision, recovery is deferred. If it is ultimately found that Cess cannot be imposed, amounts collected will be returned. The judgment underscores natural justice, requiring an opportunity to be heard before imposing any detriment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Act (KCWWF)KCWWF Scheme

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Audi alteram partem (opportunity to be heard) – natural justice

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner has argued that his contract with KWA was limited to supply of construction materials and not involvement in actual construction work. Therefore, liability to pay Cess under KCWWF Act cannot attach to him. He contends the 1% deduction from his bill is unwarranted and seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings. He relies on earlier judgments (Poulose v. State of Kerala; Kerala Construction WWF Board v. State of Kerala) to support his stance, and requests that the competent authority be required to assess the true nature of his contract and give him an opportunity to be heard before any levy is confirmed.

Contentions of Respondents

The KWA and its counsel contend that a contractor engaged by KWA falls within the ambit of construction activity for purposes of KCWWF, and thus is liable to pay Cess as long as construction works are involved. They assert that even supply of materials can be considered part of construction work and, therefore, the deduction is justified; they oppose any unilateral imposition without proper assessment or hearing.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Poulose and others v. State of Kerala and others1993(3) ILR Kerala 675Mentioned OnlyPetitioner relied on this decision; cited as background authority supporting his stance but not expressly adopted or overridden in the ruling.
Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Board v. State of Kerala1995(2) KLT 724Mentioned OnlyCited as precedent to frame the KCWWF ambit; not expressly distinguished or overruled in the present judgment.
W.P.(C) No. 39649 of 2023 (this Hon'ble Court)04.12.2023 JudgmentMentioned OnlyExhibit P4A referenced; used as part of the factual and legal backdrop in the Appendix; not central to the dispositive reasoning here.

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. 747 OF 2024` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` JOSEPH JOHN, AGED 55 YEARS, 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, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER P.H CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY KALMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001. ``` ``` 3THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001. ``` ``` 4KERALA CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NIRMAN BHAVAN, METTUKADA, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014. ``` ``` BY ADV.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. 747 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. 747 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. 747 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. 747 OF 2024 ``` ``` -5- ``` ``` 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. 747 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. ``` ``` As a corollary, if, through the afore ``` ``` exercise, it is to be found that “Cess” under ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 747 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. 747 OF 2024 ``` ``` -8- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 747/2024` ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO. KWA/PHC/PKD/JJM/KOTTOPADAM/21-22 DATED 23-09-2022 TOGETHER WITH THE ACCEPTED SCHEDULE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF AGREEMENT NO. 2 1 / 2 0 2 2 - 2 3 /SE/PHC/PKD DATED 10-10-2022 ``` ``` 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 ```