High Court · 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.6.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARWrit Petition No.25432 of 2004 K.Baskaran,Engineering & Contractor,Having Office at No.1, Old No.18,Patchai Appar Street,Nesapakkam, West K.K. Nagar,Chennai-600 078. ... Petitioner vs.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. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for recordsof the respondents particularly that of the 3rd respondent dated17.7.2004 in Ref.No.10612/TNMSC/ENGG/2004 and quash the same asillegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction and consequently directthe respondents to pay a sum of Rs.1,72,510/- for the work done bythe petitioner for the Master Health Check up Unit at GeneralHospital, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : M/s.S.Rajani RamadasFor Respondents : M/s.Shivakumar and Suresh -----O R D E RThe Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the respondentsparticularly that of the 3rd respondent dated 17.7.2004 inRef.No.10612/TNMSC/ENGG/ 2004 and quash the same as illegal, unlawfuland without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents topay a sum of Rs.1,72,510/- for the work done by the petitioner forthe Master Health Check up Unit at Government General Hospital,Chennai.2. The brief facts for disposal of the case is as follows:- Thewrit petitioner is a contractor and was engaged by the thirdrespondent to undertake certain building work for the Tamil NaduMedical Service Corporation. According to the petitioner in the year2000-2001, he completed the work which was entrusted to him and a sumof Rs.2,90,008/- was paid. Thereafter, he submitted quotations forelectrical work and additional work amounting to Rs.38,106.27 andRs.1,34,404/-. The case of the petitioner is that for the above twoadditional works, work orders were signed by the Assistant Engineerand the Executive Engineer and the petitioner was directed toproceed and complete the work and he completed the work. For thefirst work relating to the electrical job, petitioner relies upon aletter of the Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation Ltd.,Ref.No.34261/TNMSC/Engg., dated 14.3.2001 and the Annexure that hasbeen signed by the Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineerrecommending the quotation. As far as the second work is concerned,there is no covering letter except a list giving details of theadditional work amounting to Rs.1,34,404/- singed by the AssistantEngineer and the Executive Engineer. It is pertinent to point outthat in both the cases, there is no approval or signature of theManaging Director of the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Ltd.According to the petitioner, the above said work totalling toRs.1,72,510/- was completed at the request of the respondents. Thethird respondent Managing Director, however, failed to pay the amounton completion of the work in spite of a legal notice. The request ofthe petitioner by the letter dated 9.7.2004 was rejected on17.7.2004, which is under challenge in this writ petitioner. Theorder dated 17.7.2004 reads as follows:-"With reference to your letter cited, we wishto state that as per the available records of thisOffice there is no evidence to prove that theworks mentioned in your letter were carried out by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ you in Master Health Checkup Scheme, GGH, Chennai.In addition, no Engineer (Civil or Electrical)from TNMSC Ltd., was instructed to verify theworks in Master Health Checkup Scheme, GGH,Chennai as mentioned in your letter. Hence thequestion of making payment to you for the worksmentioned in your letter does not"Since the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the thirdrespondent, 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 theother respondents. The main contention is that there is no recordevidencing the entrustment of the electrical work and the additionalwork as claimed. It is contended that no such work was undertaken bythe petitioner. Third respondent accepted the quotation for thefirst work only and the work order was given to the petitioner onapproval 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 andadditional work, the specific case of the respondents is that theentire issue remained in the stage of quotation. No work order wasissued in favour of the petitioner. The respondents contend thatthe letter dated 14.3.2001 is not the letterhead of the thirdrespondent corporation. It is not signed by the Managing Director,hence it has no value and it cannot form the basis of thepetitioner's claim. The tender quotation, even if it is accepted bythe Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer, has not beencountersigned by the Managing Director so as to enable the petitionerto take up the work. In short, the entire claim is disputed by thethird respondent both on facts and also on the basis of records. 4. Petitioner has in the type set of papers submitted a letterdated 23.1.2001 signed by the Managing Director inRef.No.31744/TNMSC/ENGG/2001 whereby the petitioner was granted workof building repair under the Master Health Checkup Scheme. Thatwork has been completed and payment has been made. However, withregard to the subsequent two works as claimed by the petitioner,there is no proper document to show that the Managing Director hasgranted the approval accepting the tender. No work order is issuedand no such document is produced. There is no proof of handing overthe site for the additional work. The letter dated 14.3.2001 doesnot bear the signature of the Managing Director. It cannot bepresumed that on the basis of the signature of the Assistant Engineerand the Executive Engineer, the quotation has been accepted and thework order has been issued. Respondents seriously dispute the entireclaim of the petitioner on facts. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. In view of the apparent vagueness in the document relied uponby the petitioner and in the absence of the signature of the ManagingDirector and in view of the specific plea taken by the respondentsthat there is no record to show that the tender was accepted and thework was entrusted and executed, this court is not inclined to gointo disputed question of fact and adjudicate the claim of thepetitioner. This court does not find any glaring infirmity in thestand taken by the respondents so as to invoke the extra-ordinaryjurisdiction of this court to consider the claim which is disputed.It is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum forredressal the grievance in accordance with law.6. Finding no merit, the writ petition is dismissed. No orderas to costs. tsSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo 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.+ 1 cc to Mr.Shivakumar and Suresh, Advocates, SR.25860.+ 1 cc to Mr.S.Rajeni Ramadoss, Advocate, SR.25873.Order in W.P.No.25432 of 2004SSN(CO)GS/07/07/09