This petition challenged the termination order (Exhibit P3) and sought extension of time for contract works. The court refused the relief, finding no valid reason for delay and noting completion was not possible within the short extension sought.
Writ petition dismissed. Direction to re-tender the work at the earliest.
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 MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY ,THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 24TH ASWINA, 1940
WP(C).No. 15884 of 2018
PETITIONER/S:
GEORGE M. PHILIP S/O.M.P.PHILIPOSE,AGED 58 YEARS,CONTRACTOR,MUTTUMTHARAPADICKAL HOUSE,PARAMPUZHA P.O.,KOTTAYAM-4.
BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.P.T.ABHILASH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2
WP(C).15884/18
7 SOUHRIDA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, MUNDUKOTTA-AMMATHANCHIRA PALLIKKACHIRA P.O., PAYIPPADU, CHANGANASSERY-686537, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT K.G. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR.
BY ADVS. SRI.SAJI MATHEW SRI.DENU JOSEPH SMT.NEETHU REGHUKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.9.2018, THE COURT ON 16.10.2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
W.P(C).No. 15884 of 2018
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following
reliefs:
Government Pleader.
4
WP(C).15884/18
preparatory work and only remaining work was the tarring of the road. It is stated that the petitioner was laid up due to illness and could not complete the work. He, thereafter, preferred a representation seeking 15 days time for completing the work and sought extension for time for the above purpose. It is stated that Exhibit P3 order was passed terminating the contract without considering the request of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that if 15 days time is granted, the petitioner would be able to complete the entire work and termination of the contract is absolutely unnecessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5
WP(C).15884/18
local politicians and the local authority had been submitting repeated representations and carrying out agitations to see that the work is completed. It is therefore contended that the contentions of the petitioner are clearly without any bona fides and that the prayer sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted.
6
WP(C).15884/18
months. No reason which would appeal to a reasonable mind has been stated by the petitioner for his failure to carry out the work within the time specified in the contract. The contract also stands terminated by Exhibit P3. In the absence of any valid ground of challenge to Exhibit P3, this Court is unable to sustain the challenge against the same. In the above view of the matter, the further contention of the petitioner that he will complete the work, if he is given 15 days further time does not require consideration especially in view of the fact that the local residents have come before this Court seeking an early resolution of the issue and for appropriate steps to be taken by the respondents for completing the work at the earliest. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be a direction to the official respondents to see that the work is re-tendered at the earliest and completed without further delay.
Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE
vgs
7
WP(C).15884/18
APPENDIX
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4(A).
COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AGREEMENT NO.172/SECS/2017-18 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIOENR AND 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 4/10/2017.
EXHIBIT R4(B).
TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.AB3(1)-4311/2017 ISSUED BYTHE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24/5/2018.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant extension of time to the petitioner to complete works terminated under Exhibit P3
Challenge made to the termination of contract order by Exhibit P3
Whether the petitioner could complete the work within 15 days
1 provisions across 1 enactments
George M. Philip
State of Kerala represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Public Works
Chief Engineer PWD Roads Bridges Public Offices
Souhrida Residents Welfare Association
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
