This court dismissed a writ petition filed by a construction company challenging the termination of its contract by the Second Respondent. The High Court found the petitioner failed to commence the project earnestly and did not fulfill contractual obligations, deeming it not a fit case for judicial interference under Article 226.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/2ND KARTHIKA, 1935
WP(C).No. 21149 of 2013 (P)
PETITIONER(S):
K.R.R.INFRA PROJECTS (PVT). LTD. REGISTERED OFFICE, D.NO.7-1-54/1, FLAT NO.204 SATHYA SAI RESIDENCY, DHARAN KARAN ROAD, AMEERPET HYDERABAD, ANDRA PRADESH-500016 REPRESENTED BY K.K.JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.K.K.KRISHNAN, AGED 49 YEARS KALLINGAPURAM HOUSE, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN 695001.
2. THE CYBER PARK KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BUILDING NO.18/1890, NELLIKKODE P.O. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673016.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.ABDUL SALAM, SC, CYBER PARK, KOZHIKODE R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R2 BY ADV. SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MNS
WP(C).No. 21149 of 2013 (P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY DATED 12/08/2013.
EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED, 24.9.2012 IN W.P.(C) NO.16019/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED ,26.9.2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED, 5.10.2012.
EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, TERMINATING THE CONTRACT, AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 2.4.2013.
EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.5.2013.
EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED, 14.6.2013.
EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT.14.6.2013 TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES.
EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED, 16.7.2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.5.2013 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.4.2013 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
W.P.(c) No.21149 OF 2013
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2013
JUDGMENT
Termination of the contract awarded to the petitioner vide Ext.P5
is under challenge in this writ petition. The sequence of events reveals that the petitioner was awarded the work by the second respondent as early as in September 2012 for the construction of IT building in Kozhikode. It is the case of the petitioner that, the work was awarded to the petitioner, being the lowest occupying 'L1' position. Further, in the course of time, several communications were issued and the contract came to be terminated as per Ext.P5 order dated 2-4-213,which according to the petitioner is not correct or sustainable either on facts or in law. It is stated that the delay was never on the part of the petitioner, but because of several reasons attributable to the respondents herein. The position was explained by the petitioner by filing Exts.P6 to P8 communications/representations. It is stated that the representation by way of Ext.P8, which originally was filed before the
W.P.(C)No.21149/2013
2
Minister for Industries, is stated as pending consideration before the Government. The petitioner contends that the petitioner has already invested huge amount and that the petitioner is even now ready to complete the work. In spite of this, steps are being pursued by the respondents to have work retendered, which made the petitioner to approach this Court for immediate intervention.
W.P.(C)No.21149/2013
3
involved, the factual particulars especially with regard to time of completion of work have been given in paragraph 4 of the statement, which is reproduced below for convenience of reference :
“4. Without prejudice to the above it is submitted that in terms of the Work Order dated 26.9.2012 and the Articles of Agreement dated 3.10.2012 the 2nd respondent awarded to the petitioner the contract for constructing the First IT Building of 26,428 sq.m. at Cyberpark, Kozhikode, in a time bound manner. The contractually stipulated timelines for the work are as follows :
1. Work Order : 26/09/2012 2. Commencement date : 10/10/2012 3. Contract period/ Completion date : 540 days - 27/03/2014 4. Milestone - 1 : 135 days from acceptance of WO - 15/02/2013 5. Milestone - 2 : 255 days from acceptance of WO - 15/06/2013 6. Milestone - 3 : 375 days from acceptance of WO - 13/10/2013 7. Milestone - 4 : 455 days from acceptance of WO - 01/01/2014 8. Milestone - 5 : 540 days from acceptance of WO -27/03/2014”
petitioner as early as on 4.10.2012 and all the drawings were also handed over, the work was not commenced. Despite extending time
W.P.(C)No.21149/2013
4
for carrying out the work for several times, the petitioner did not take any earnest effort to see that the work is commenced and completed which has caused much loss and hardship to the respondents. The petitioner also did not fulfil the contractual obligation by submitting Bank Guarantee to the extent of Rs.27,68,733.89 towards balance Security Deposit/Performance Security and has failed to obtain Contractor's All Risk Insurance Policy. It was after giving several opportunities to the petitioner, that the second respondent was constrained to terminate the contract by issuing Ext.P5 order. It is pointed out that after the termination of the contract as per Ext.P5, the petitioner submitted Annexure B letter dated 29/04/2013 raising some wild allegations, which in turn was replied by the respondents, as borne by the contents of Annexure A letter. The averment of the petitioner that there was no access to the site is also pointed out as not correct, as multiple access to the site was always available to the petitioner and it was very much known to the petitioner, who made use of the same by bringing two containers to the site office . It is further pointed out that the plea raised by the petitioner as to the alleged lapse
W.P.(C)No.21149/2013 5
on the part of the respondents with regard to the non-supply of drawings is a new one, which does not find a place in Annexure B letter or in Ext.P6 and that the same is intended only to mould the case before this Court. The respondents have also pointed out in paragraph 12 that, because of similar failure/lapse on the part of the petitioner, the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. has also recently terminated its contract with the petitioner, with regard to which this Court does not intend to express any opinion, being not a matter within the scope of this writ petition.
Writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE
sv.
W.P.(C)No.21149/2013 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the termination of the contract awarded to the petitioner by the second respondent warrants interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
K.R.R.Infra Projects (Pvt). Ltd.
The State of Kerala
The Cyber Park Kozhikode
P.R.Ramachandram Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
