STATE OF KERALA Vs. S.SATHEESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State and its officials have preferred the appeal challenging the judgment of a learned single Judge dtd. 7/7/2021 in W.P.(C) No. 9932 of 2015; whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside Exhibit P3 communication dtd. 4/8/2014 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, IIP Division No.I, Angamaly, appellant No. 4, informing the respondent/writ petitioner that the payment due to his firm is withheld until he produces the partnership deed to verify the clauses, and till getting clearance from higher office that there is no liability due to him against the firm of the first respondent.

(2.) Basic material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:

(3.) According to the respondent/writ petitioner, the appellants compelled the wife of Satyapalan Smt. Syamala Satyapalan, who was his nominee to continue the work and also for receiving any money that may become due consequent to his death. Anyhow, a supplemental agreement was executed between the appellants and Syamala Satyapalan and accordingly she resumed the work. It is also submitted that the time for completion of the work was extended several times. It is submitted that the validity of the original agreement expired on 13/7/2002. Anyhow, the said contract was foreclosed and she was relieved from the obligation of continuing the work. Some writ petitions and other consequential proceedings were initiated by Syamala Satyapalan. Presumably on the basis of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1961-1962 of 2013, she filed O.S. No. 48 of 2014 before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha against the appellants and the same is pending consideration.