High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed; matter remanded for a he...

Joseph John v. Kerala Water Authority and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 723 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Devang Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2024-01-08
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition allowed. Impugned proceedings set aside. The competent Authority of the KWA is directed to hear the petitioner and assess whether he is liable to pay cess under the KCWWF Act, considering that he only supplies materials and is not engaged in the actual construction work. Until such assessment, any recovery from the petitioner’s bill towards cess will be deferred. If it is ultimately found that cess cannot be imposed, the amounts already collected will be refunded without delay. The decision shall be communicated to the petitioner along with the orders, expeditiously, and in light of the cited precedents.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed; matter remanded for a hearing and assessment of cess liability; stay on recovery pending orders; possible refund if not liable; orders to be communicated to the petitioner.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Joseph John

Respondents

  • Kerala Water Authority
  • The Superintendent Engineer, PH-Circle, KWA
  • The Executive Engineer, Project Division, KWA
  • 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), challenges a deduction of 1% cess under the Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Act (KCWWF). He asserts that his contract with KWA is limited to supplying materials for pipeline works and does not involve any construction activity, hence he should not be liable to pay the KCWWF cess. The KWA, however, contends that as long as the petitioner is a contractor for construction works, cess is unavoidable; even material supply is treated as part of construction. There is a clear factual dispute regarding the nature of the petitioner’s contract and his involvement in construction tasks. The petitioner cites earlier Kerala High Court judgments (Poulose and others v. State of Kerala and Kerala Construction WWF Board v. State of Kerala) to support his position. The court notes that KCWWF has defined precise criteria for cess liability and emphasizes the need for due process, stating that no contractor should be penalized without proper assessment and hearing. In a key interim ruling, the court allows the writ petition, sets aside the impugned proceedings, and directs the KWA to hear and assess the petitioner’s claim, allowing a deferral of cess recovery until a determination is made. The decision relies on cited precedents and is geared toward ensuring a factual, hearing-based inquiry.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Act (KCWWF Act)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that his role is only to supply materials and he has no involvement in construction work; thus, he cannot be made liable to pay cess under KCWWF. He relies on earlier Kerala High Court rulings (Poulose v. State of Kerala and Kerala Construction WWF Board v. State of Kerala) to establish that cess liability requires a proper factual assessment and should not be imposed automatically without hearing.

Contentions of Respondents

The KWA argues that as a contractor involved in construction work, the petitioner’s obligation to pay cess under KCWWF is unavoidable; even material supply is treated as part of construction and thus cess may be applicable.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Poulose and others v. State of Kerala and others1993(3) ILR Kerala 675PositiveAcknowledged by the court as supporting the petitioner’s position that there must be proper factual assessment and hearing before imposing cess.
Kerala Construction WWF Board v. State of Kerala1995(2) KLT 724PositiveRecognized as precedents supporting the need for a hearing-based inquiry into cess liability and the scope of KCWWF.
W.P. (C) No. 39649 of 2023W.P.(C) No. 39649 of 2023Mentioned OnlyExhibit P4A includes the judgment; no explicit treatment or discussion in the judgment text is provided.

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. 723 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, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH-CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, COLLECTORATE.P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686002. ``` ``` 3THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686002. ``` - `4 KERALA 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. 723 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. 723 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. 723 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. 723 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. 723 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. 723 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. 723 OF 2024 ``` ``` -8- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 723/2024` ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO. WRD/KWA-CE(SR)/7902/2022/THIDANADU DATED 11-10-2023 TOGETHER WITH THE ACCEPTED SCHEDULE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF AGREEMENT NO. 3 5 / S E / P H C K / 2 0 2 3 - 2024 DATED 2-11-2023 ``` ``` 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 ```