Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE MONDAY,THE26H DAY OF MAY20145TH JYAISHTA, 1936 WP(C).No. 12891 of 2013 (J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- UMESH KUMAR.P,AGED45YEARS, S/O. O.K.MADHAVAN, PWD CONTRACTOR, "ANUGRAHAM", NEAR CHETTIPEEDIKA, P.O.PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR670004. BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL SRI.P.SAJU RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. CHIEF ENGINEER PWD, ROADS AND BRIDGES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD, ROADS AND BRIDGES, (NORTH) CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE - 693 101 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SANJEETHA.K.A THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2605-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Msd. WP(C).No. 12891 of 2013 (J) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF AGREEMENT DATED1605-2011 ENTERED INTO WITH3D RESPONDENT . EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTIONED ESTIMATE. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED2911-2011 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO3D RESPONDENT . EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED1406-2012 OF3D RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED2206-2012 OF PETITIONER TO R3. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED2012-2012 OF R3 TERMINATING THE CONTRACT AT RISK AND COST. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED2101-2013 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO R2. EXT.P7(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE. Msd. A.M. Shaffique, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 12891 of 2013 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 26th day of May, 2014.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext. P6 order issued by the Roads and Bridges Division, terminating the work awarded in favour of the petitioner at his risk and cost. According to the petitioner, even if the work was awarded, no steps were taken by the respondent authority to provide the work front, as a result of which, he could not carry out the work and therefore the termination is bad in law.
2. Counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent inter alia stating that as per the terms of work order, the handing over the site was fixed as, "on or before 25.5.2011" and the date of completion was "on or before 24.9.2011." It is stated that the petitioner failed to take over the site for the purpose of commencement of work and even though several requests were made to take over the site and to commence the work, no action was taken by the petitioner. Registered notices were issued to the petitioner on 2.12.2011 and 23.12.2011 with specific direction to take over the site and to commence the work. Thereafter, letter dated 14.6.2012 was served on the petitioner for a direction to commence work immediately.
3. The petitioner submitted a reply on 22.6.2012 indicating about the hindrance in commencing the work and to relieve him from the contract without any risk and cost. -:
2. :- 4. It is further contended that non-availability of additional land has not restricted the petitioner from commencing the work especially the work of carriage way. The petitioner was aware of the site conditions at the time of entering into Ext. P1 agreement. The delay caused by the petitioner resulted in heavy loss to the Government.
5. Having regard to the fact that the factual statements made by the petitioner has been disputed by the respondent, I do not think that this is a matter in which this Court can give appropriate directions. This Court cannot adjudicate on the validity or otherwise of Ext. P6. All the factual materials are to be considered and evidence has to be taken for arriving at a proper decision regarding the correctness of Ext. P6. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil court for appropriate reliefs. Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge. Tds/