Petitioner challenged an order terminating a road construction contract. Court held that factual disputes on work completion and respondent obligations are better suited for Civil Court. Writ petition dismissed without prejudice to civil remedy.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioner relegated to pursue remedy in Civil Court.
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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 11660 of 2015 (F)
PETITIONER :
K.M. SALIM, S/O.MARAKKARR,
PWD CONTRACTOR, KOMBAN HOUSE, ERUMAMUNDA.P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY) SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN SRI.J.RAMKUMAR SMT.AMRIN FATHIMA
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, (CHAIRMAN STANDING EMPOWERED COMMITTEE FOR THE WORK PMGSY PACKAGE NO.KR 09-18(A), NILAMBUR BLOCK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT) SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA STATE RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, TC-28/885, CSI BUILDING, PULIMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, POVERTY ALLEVIATION UNIT (PMGSY), DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, POST BOX NO.9, MALAPPURAM-676 505
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, POVERTY ALLEVIATION UNIT (PMGSY), DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, POST BOX NO.9, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505
2/-
-2-
WP(C).No. 11660 of 2015 (F)
5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, NILAMBUR BLOCK, NILAMBUR.P.O., MALAPPURAM-679 329
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL VARGHESE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 11660 of 2015 (F)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
W.P.(C). No. 11660 of 2015(F) ===================================================== Dated this the 11th day of December, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 order, whereby the respondents, with whom the petitioner had entered into a contract for construction of a road, cancelled the work that was awarded to the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner did not comply with the obligations under the contract. Ext.P5 order makes it clear that the work awarded to the petitioner was terminated without risk and cost to the respondents. In the writ petition it is the case of the petitioner that, the stand of the respondents in Ext.P5 order that the petitioner had not completed any portion of the work is not correct, since the petitioner had actually done a substantial portion of the work and this would be evident from a perusal of the 'M book' that was maintained by the respondents. It is also stated that, contrary to the obligations that were required of the respondents to make available the site for road construction free of all utilities such as electric post, water pipes etc., the respondents delayed in removing the electric posts etc., thereby leading to a delayed execution of the work by the petitioner.
-2-
W.P.(C). No. 11660 of 2015(F)
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that, since the
-3-
W.P.(C). No. 11660 of 2015(F)
issue involved in this writ petition is based on a contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondents, and there is a dispute between the parties on factual aspects such as the extent of work done, and whether or not the obligation of the respondents had been fulfilled by them. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will not be an appropriate one for examining the said issues. The petitioner ought to be relegated to pursue his remedy before the Civil Court, where the factual aspects of the matter can be established by adducing evidence. Accordingly, I find that the prayers sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. As a result, the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P5 order fails, and is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
das/ 11.12.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Article 226 jurisdiction is appropriate for examining factual disputes regarding extent of work and utility shifting delays in a contract termination case.
Whether the petitioner can rely on filed exhibits regarding work completion and site readiness to challenge the termination order in this writ petition.
K.M. Salim
State of Kerala
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
