WP(C) No. 29159 of 2012 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of as above
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. If the petitioner has actually been entrusted with the work, by aproper decision of the Syndicate, the same will have to be honoured andthe petitioner will have to be granted the benefits also. Therefore, there willbe a direction to the Syndicate itself to take…
Judgment
W.P.(C). No.29159/2012-:2:-
The details of the amount quoted have been explained inpara.5 of the writ petition. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to get1% of 2.75% of the total cost of the project as per the Council of Architecture under the Architect Act, 1972 and Central Public WorksDepartment Works Manual, copies of which are produced as Exts.P3 andP4. In the last page of Ext.P4 petitioner has produced Appendix-14, astatement showing the rates of departmental charges leviable on CPWDWorks and their break-up in a tabular form. Ext.P5 is a representationpending before the Vice Chancellor.
Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the University whosubmitted that the work said to have been executed by the petitioner iscorrect but it is because of the procedural irregularities, certain objectionswere raised which has caused the delay in the matter.
Operative part
If the petitioner has actually been entrusted with the work, by aproper decision of the Syndicate, the same will have to be honoured andthe petitioner will have to be granted the benefits also. Therefore, there willbe a direction to the Syndicate itself to take a decision as it is pointed outthat various deliberations were made by the Syndicate itself within a periodof two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment, especially in the light of Ext.P4 produced herein, which will be duly verifiedfor its applicability to the work. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)ms
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Architect Act, 1972.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.