High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-10-14Disposed

V.S. Ashok Kumar and Sajeev A.K. v. Deputy Chief Engineer, Transmission Circle, Kerala State Electricity Board, Kalamassery; Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Kerala State Electricity Board, Muvattupuzha; Assistant Executive Engineer, Transmission Sub Division, Kerala State Electricity Board, Kothamangalam; Kerala State Electricity Board, Vydyudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Secretary

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.29738 of 2009 (J)

Neutral Citation:null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date: 2014-10-14
Court Decision / Holding: Dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioners to file detailed representations before the 3rd respondent supplementing Exts. P12 and P13 within one month from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment; the 3rd respondent is to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representations, as expeditiously as possible, but within three months from receipt, with notice to the petitioners and after giving them an opportunity of personal hearing. No order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Disposed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V.S. Ashok Kumar
Sajeev A.K.

Respondents

Deputy Chief Engineer, Transmission Circle, Kerala State Electricity Board, Kalamassery
Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Kerala State Electricity Board, Muvattupuzha
Assistant Executive Engineer, Transmission Sub Division, Kerala State Electricity Board, Kothamangalam
Kerala State Electricity Board, Vydyudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Secretary

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Joseph Sebastian Purayidam
• Smt. Mable C. Kurian

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri P.P. Thajudeen, SC, K.S.E.B
• Sri P. Santhalingam (Sr.)
• Sri S. Sharan, SC, K.S.E.B Board

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, V.S. Ashok Kumar and Sajeev A.K., filed WP(C) 29738 of 2009 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, officers of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), to disburse payments allegedly due for contract work of tree cutting along the 110 KV DC line from Kuthungal to Neriamangalam. The work was performed under three separate agreements (Exts. P1–P3) with the 2nd respondent, and the petitioners deposited security of ₹7,000. They contend that the work was completed within the agreed time and that the Board owes ₹1,47,000 to the 1st petitioner and ₹52,000 to the 2nd petitioner, which they sought to recover through representations (Exts. P4–P13). In response, the respondents argued that Exts. P1–P3 are not in proper form, Ext. P3 lacks signatures, and the work order/schedule is unavailable; they further asserted that the petitioners did not submit bills and that the available records do not prove execution of the work. The petitioners maintained that the 110 KV line had been commissioned, and that denial of payment would amount to unjust enrichment. The court, while acknowledging the need to verify the underlying facts, disposed of the petition by directing the petitioners to file detailed representations supplementing Exts. P12 and P13, with the 3rd respondent to consider and decide within three months after a personal hearing, and without any costs, reflecting a balanced approach to verify execution before payment.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Unjust enrichment
Responsible litigants (principle that statutory authorities should discharge public functions in good faith)
Restitution / restoration to the extent possible with appropriate compensation (as stated in Urban Improvement Trust v. Mohan Lal)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that they undertook the contract work of tree cutting for the 110 KV DC line from Kuthungal to Neriamangalam under Exts. P1–P3, completed the work within the stipulated time, and deposited security. They claim non-payment of ₹1,47,000 to the 1st petitioner and ₹52,000 to the 2nd petitioner. Representations were submitted (Exts. P4, P5; P8, P9; P12, P13) and, in response, details of the agreements were furnished (Exts. P6–P7, P10–P11). The respondents counter that the copies of Exts. P1–P3 are not in proper form, Ext. P3 lacks signatures, and the work order/schedule are unavailable; they further assert that the petitioners did not submit bills and that, from available records, the work was not executed. The petition seeks mandamus to pay; the petitioners rely on the principle of unjust enrichment to argue that non-payment would unjustly enrich the Board. The judgment ultimately directs further representations and a timely exercise of due consideration by the 3rd respondent with opportunity for personal hearing.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the contract documents lack proper form and signatures (Ext. P3), the work order/schedule are missing, and the petitioners did not submit bills; they argue that the available records do not establish that the petitioners undertook the tree-cutting work, and that the complaint was lodged only after a long delay (2007). They emphasize the need to verify authenticity and completion of work before any payment, implying that belated claims should not be rewarded absent proper documentation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Mohan Lal	2010 (1) SCC 521	Positive	Cited to emphasize that statutory authorities must act as responsible litigants and provide restitution where officers are negligent or when genuine grievances are raised; supports the court’s stance against unjust enrichment and its willingness to remedy grievances by timely action.

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 V.S. Ashok Kumar and Sajeev A.K. v. Deputy Chief Engineer, Transmission Circle, Kerala State Electricity Board, Kalamassery; Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Kerala State Electricity Board, Muvattupuzha; Assistant Executive Engineer, Transmission Sub Division, Kerala State Electricity Board, Kothamangalam; Kerala State Electricity Board, Vydyudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Secretary 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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/22ND ASWINA, 1936 ## WP(C).No.29738 of 2009 (J) -------------------------- ## PETITIONERS : - ------------- 1. V.S.ASHOK KUMAR, VARAKUKALAYIL HOUSE, RAJAKKAD P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. SAJEEV A.K., ACKAL HOUSE, RAJAKKAD, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ## BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM SMT.MABLE.C.KURIAN ## RESPONDENTS : - -------------- 1. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KALAMASSERY. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R1 TO 4 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) R1 TO 4 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN, SC, K.S.E.BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## WP(C).No.29738 of 2009 (J) ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WITH NO.EE/TR/15/98-99. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WITH NO.EE/TR/22/99-2000. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WITH NO.EE/TR/27/99-2000. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT TO THE 2[nd] RESPONDENT BY THE 1[st] PETIITIONER. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT TO THE 3[rd] RESPONDENT BY THE 1[st] PETIITIONER. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 1[st] PETITIONER BY THE 3[rd] RESPONDENT DTD.11/12/2007. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE 1[st] PETITIONER TO THE 3[rd] RESPONDENT DTD.15/2/2008. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT TO THE 2[nd] RESPONDENT BY THE 2[nd] PETIITIONER. EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT TO THE 3rd RESPONDENT BY THE 2[nd] PETIITIONER. EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 2[nd] PETITIONER BY THE 3[rd] RESPONDENT DTD.11/12/2007. EXT.P11 : COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE 2[nd] PETITIONER TO THE 3[rd] RESPONDENT DTD.15/2/2008. EXT.P12 : COPY OF THE REMINDER SENT BY THE 1[st] PETITIONER TO THE 3[rd] RESPONDENT. EXT.P13 : COPY OF THE REMINDER SENT BY THE 2[nd] PETITIONER TO THE 3[rd] RESPONDENT. EXT.P14 : COPY OF THE A/D CARD EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P12 BY THE 3[rd] RESPONDENT ON 29/6/09. EXT.P15 : COPY OF THE A/D CARDS EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P13 BY THE 3[rd] RESPONDENT ON 29/6/09. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. True copy P.A to Judge **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J. --------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.29738 of 2009** **---------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of October, 2014** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse the amount due to them in respect of the contract work of tree cutting undertook on the strength of Exhibits P1 to P3 agreements in relation to 110 KV DC line from Kuthungal to Neriamangalam of the KSEB. According to the petitioners, they undertook the contract work of tree cutting for 110KV DC line from Kuthungal to Neriamangalam, on the strength of Exts.P1 to P3 agreements executed with the 2[nd] respondent. Ext.P1 agreement is in respect of Notice Nos.1 to 85, Ext.P2 is in respect of 2[nd] portion of the transmission line from Kuthungal to Panamkutty and Ext.P3 is in respect of the 3[rd] and last portion of the transmission line from Kuthungal to Panamkutty. The petitioners have deposited a total sum of ₹7,000/- towards security deposit in respect of the works W.P.(C).No.29738 of 2009 2 covered by Exts.P1 to P3. Though they have completed the work within the stipulated time, the respondents are yet to pay ₹1,47,000/- to the 1st petitioner and `52,000/- to the 2nd petitioner. Demanding the said amount, the petitioners have submitted Exts.P4 and P5 representations before the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondent. As requested by the 3[rd] respondent in Ext.P6, the details of the agreements executed for the work were furnished, vide Ext.P7 reply. Later, Exts.P8 and P9 representations were submitted before the 1[st] and 3[rd] respondents requesting them to disburse the payment in respect of the contract work already undertaken. Pursuant to the request made by the 3[rd] respondent in Ext.P10, further details of the agreements were furnished vide Ext.P11 reply, which was followed by Exts.P12 and P13 representations submitted by the petitioners before the 3[rd] respondent. It is aggrieved by the non-disbursement of the amount in respect of the work undertaken by the petitioners on the strength of Exts.P1 to P3 and also the non-disposal of Exts.P4, P5, P8, P9, P12 and P13 representations, the petitioners have approached W.P.(C).No.29738 of 2009 3 this Court in this Writ Petition seeking various reliefs. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents contending that the petitioners could produce only copy of the agreements to substantiate their claim. The 1[st] petitioner had executed Exts.P1 and P2 agreements with the 2[nd] respondent. In the copy of Ext.P3 agreement produced by the 2[nd] petitioner the signature of the parties to the agreement and that of the witness are missing. The copy of the agreements are not in the proper form. The work order and schedule of the agreement are not available. According to the respondents, as per the available records, the petitioners have not executed the work. Moreover, the first complaint regarding non-payment was made by the petitioners only on 22/11/2007, i.e., after a very long period of 7 years. On enquiry it is understood that, the petitioners had not submitted any bills in the office of the Major Transmission Section, Kothamangalam, which office is subsequently renamed as Transmission Sub Division, Kothamangalam. W.P.(C).No.29738 of 2009 4 3. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board. 4. According to the petitioners, they undertook the contract work of tree cutting for 110KV DC line from Kuthungal to Neriamangalam, on the strength of Exts.P1 to P3 agreements executed with the 2[nd] respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that, though they have completed the tree cutting work within the stipulated time, the respondents are yet to pay 1,47,000/- to the 1₹ st petitioner and 52,000/- to the₹ 2[nd] petitioner. Exts.P4 and P5 are the representations originally submitted by the petitioners before the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, demanding payment of the said amount, which was followed by subsequent representations. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit is that, the copies of Exts.P1 to P3 agreements furnished by the petitioners are not in the proper form and the copy of Ext.P3 agreement does not even contain the signature of the parties to that agreement and that of the witness. According to the respondents, the W.P.(C).No.29738 of 2009 5 petitioners had not submitted any bills in the concerned office of the Board at Kothamangalam. 5. Though the respondents would contend that, as per the available records, the petitioners have not executed the work, they have absolutely no case that, the tree cutting work covered by Exts.P1 to P3 was executed by any person other than the petitioners. It is not in dispute that, the 110KV DC line from Kuthungal to Neriamangalam had already been commissioned. Therefore, the respondents cannot have a case that the tree cutting work covered by Exts.P1 to P3 agreements are yet to be undertaken. 6. If the petitioners had actually undertaken the tree cutting work covered by Exts.P1 to P3 agreements, the respondent Board has to disburse the amount payable to them, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment. The respondent Board, as a responsible litigant, is not expected to defeat the claim made by the petitioners on the plea that the claim is highly belated or barred by limitation. In **Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Mohan Lal (2010 (1) SCC** W.P.(C).No.29738 of 2009 6 ## **521)** the Apex Court has reiterated as follows; “Statutory Authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest. They should be responsible litigants. They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in a callous and highhanded manner. They can not behave like some private litigants with profiteering motives. Nor can they resort to unjust enrichment. They are expected to show remorse or regret when their officers act negligently or in an overbearing manner. When glaring wrong acts by their officers is brought to their notice, for which there is no explanation or excuse, the least that is expected is restitution / restoration to the extent possible with appropriate compensation. Their harsh attitude in regard to genuine grievances of the public and their indulgence in unwarranted litigation requires to be corrected.” 7. At the same time, the respondent Board cannot be directed to disburse any amount payable to the petitioners in respect of the tree cutting work covered by Exts.P1 to P3 agreements, without ascertaining as to whether they have undertaken the said work to the satisfaction of the Board. In such circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to file detailed representations before the 3[rd] W.P.(C).No.29738 of 2009 7 respondent supplementing Exts.P12 and P13 representations, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, and the 3[rd] respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the said representations, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representations with notice to the petitioners and after giving them an opportunity of personal hearing. No order as to costs. ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** skj