Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2009
  6. /
  7. January

K.Baskaran vs The Assistant Engineer

Madras High Court|24 June, 2009

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the respondents particularly that of the 3rd respondent dated 17.7.2004 in Ref.No.10612/TNMSC/ENGG/ 2004 and quash the same as illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.1,72,510/- for the work done by the petitioner for the Master Health Check up Unit at Government General Hospital, Chennai.
2. The brief facts for disposal of the case is as follows:- The writ petitioner is a contractor and was engaged by the third respondent to undertake certain building work for the Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation. According to the petitioner in the year 2000-2001, he completed the work which was entrusted to him and a sum of Rs.2,90,008/- was paid. Thereafter, he submitted quotations for electrical work and additional work amounting to Rs.38,106.27 and Rs.1,34,404/-. The case of the petitioner is that for the above two additional works, work orders were signed by the Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer and the petitioner was directed to proceed and complete the work and he completed the work. For the first work relating to the electrical job, petitioner relies upon a letter of the Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation Ltd., Ref.No.34261/TNMSC/Engg., dated 14.3.2001 and the Annexure that has been signed by the Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer recommending the quotation. As far as the second work is concerned, there is no covering letter except a list giving details of the additional work amounting to Rs.1,34,404/- singed by the Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer. It is pertinent to point out that in both the cases, there is no approval or signature of the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Ltd. According to the petitioner, the above said work totalling to Rs.1,72,510/- was completed at the request of the respondents. The third respondent Managing Director, however, failed to pay the amount on completion of the work in spite of a legal notice. The request of the petitioner by the letter dated 9.7.2004 was rejected on 17.7.2004, which is under challenge in this writ petitioner. The order dated 17.7.2004 reads as follows:-
"With reference to your letter cited, we wish to state that as per the available records of this Office there is no evidence to prove that the works mentioned in your letter were carried out by you in Master Health Checkup Scheme, GGH, Chennai. In addition, no Engineer (Civil or Electrical) from TNMSC Ltd., was instructed to verify the works in Master Health Checkup Scheme, GGH, Chennai as mentioned in your letter. Hence the question of making payment to you for the works mentioned in your letter does not"
Since the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the third respondent, present writ petition has been filed.
3. A common counter has been filed by one Sanwat Ram, I.A.S., Managing Director of the third respondent for and on behalf of the other respondents. The main contention is that there is no record evidencing the entrustment of the electrical work and the additional work as claimed. It is contended that no such work was undertaken by the petitioner. Third respondent accepted the quotation for the first work only and the work order was given to the petitioner on approval in the first meeting held on 17.1.2001. For that work, payment has been made and it is accepted by the petitioner. However, with regard to the subsequent work, viz., electrification and additional work, the specific case of the respondents is that the entire issue remained in the stage of quotation. No work order was issued in favour of the petitioner. The respondents contend that the letter dated 14.3.2001 is not the letterhead of the third respondent corporation. It is not signed by the Managing Director, hence it has no value and it cannot form the basis of the petitioner's claim. The tender quotation, even if it is accepted by the Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer, has not been countersigned by the Managing Director so as to enable the petitioner to take up the work. In short, the entire claim is disputed by the third respondent both on facts and also on the basis of records.
4. Petitioner has in the type set of papers submitted a letter dated 23.1.2001 signed by the Managing Director in Ref.No.31744/TNMSC/ENGG/2001 whereby the petitioner was granted work of building repair under the Master Health Checkup Scheme. That work has been completed and payment has been made. However, with regard to the subsequent two works as claimed by the petitioner, there is no proper document to show that the Managing Director has granted the approval accepting the tender. No work order is issued and no such document is produced. There is no proof of handing over the site for the additional work. The letter dated 14.3.2001 does not bear the signature of the Managing Director. It cannot be presumed that on the basis of the signature of the Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer, the quotation has been accepted and the work order has been issued. Respondents seriously dispute the entire claim of the petitioner on facts.
5. In view of the apparent vagueness in the document relied upon by the petitioner and in the absence of the signature of the Managing Director and in view of the specific plea taken by the respondents that there is no record to show that the tender was accepted and the work was entrusted and executed, this court is not inclined to go into disputed question of fact and adjudicate the claim of the petitioner. This court does not find any glaring infirmity in the stand taken by the respondents so as to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court to consider the claim which is disputed. It is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal the grievance in accordance with law.
6. Finding no merit, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
ts To
1.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Ltd., No.417, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008,
2.The Executive Engineer, Tami Nadu Medical Services Corporation Ltd., No.417, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Ltd., No.417, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

K.Baskaran vs The Assistant Engineer

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
24 June, 2009