The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging the termination of a dredging contract. It held that disputes over contractual interpretation and factual circumstances required a civil forum, not a writ court, and found no illegality in the lower court's dismissal.
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 THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.K.ABDUL REHIM
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 1ST ASWINA, 1941
WA.No.1716 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 33871/2015(H) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SOUTHERN DREDGING COMPANY (P) LTD.
FLAT 905,PIONEER TOWERS, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND DIRECTOR-BIJU NARAYANAN
BY ADVS.
SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT COSTAL SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION (A) DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, PARAMARA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018
SR.GP. SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No.1716 OF 2019
2
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, Ag C.J. & R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.
W.A. No.1716 of 2019
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2019
JUDGMENT
Abdul Rehim, Ag C.J.
WA.No.1716 OF 2019
3
No.1123/2014. At that stage, the work was remaining partly completed and the time stipulated for execution of the work has already been run out. In Ext.P1 judgment in W.P(C) No.1123/2014, a learned Judge of this court observed that, considering importance of the work, which is based on a central allocated fund, the appellant should be given an opportunity to complete the work, if they are prepared to execute a supplementary agreement based on the terms and conditions insisted upon by the respondents. With respect to measurement of the completed portion of the work, it was observed that the respondents need to take the measurement ' as contemplated in the agreement as followed in the department' (emphasize supplied) . Further it was clarified that if the Department follows the sound level measurement, there is no reason to depart from it in order to take the measurement in the present case. However, the Department was directed to carry out the measurement within two weeks and the appellant was permitted to continue the work if they are prepared to execute the supplementary agreement. It was also made clear that, if the appellant is not willing to complete the work, the respondents will be free to re-tender the work in accordance with law. A date for appearance of the petitioner before the authorities was
WA.No.1716 OF 2019
4
also fixed, which was subsequently extended as revealed from Ext.P2 order.
WA.No.1716 OF 2019
5
found that the claim of the appellant that the measurement need to be taken on the basis of the level of the bed, cannot be accepted. In support of such finding, the learned Judge had gone on an elaborate consideration into the relevant clauses contained in the agreement of the contract, as well as to the factual circumstances prevailing, such as the initial measurement taken at the dumping yard and the counter signature put in by the appellant accepting such measurement etc. The attempt made by the appellant to establish that the prevailing practice in similar nature of works is otherwise, was not accepted. The documents produced by the appellant in order to substantiate such a contention was not followed by observing that the nature of work in question is different. However, ultimately it was found that the appellant had failed to co-operate with the 2nd respondent and the officers under him, in order to carry out the measurement and to complete rest of the work after executing a supplementary agreement. Therefore, the reasons for termination mentioned in Ext.P14 was found to be sustainable and does not suffers from any illegality, arbitrariness, unfairness or malafides, is the finding arrived. Therefore interference with Ext.P14 was declined. It was also observed that, the court while dealing with the action
WA.No.1716 OF 2019
6
taken by the administrative authority need only look into whether the basic principles and tenets of law were followed or not. Therefore it was found that there exist no circumstances justifying any interference. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed. It is challenging the said judgment the above writ appeal is filed.
WA.No.1716 OF 2019
7
relevant clause with respect to the method of taking measurements. Basically, such a dispute regarding the interpretation of a clause or as to what method has to be followed by the respondents as that of similar contracts, is a question which needs to be decided on various materials and factual circumstances. It is not proper for a writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 to resolve such an issue, with respect to which the parties are at dispute and for resolution of which consideration of factual aspects are absolutely necessary. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that, the earlier judgment (Ext.P1) in W.P.(C) No.1123/2014 had also left open the issue for decision of the respondents in accordance with the terms of the contract. Both sides have not challenged the said judgment and it had attained finality. Evidently, even after Ext.P1, the parties continued the dispute which resulted in the alleged non co-operation on the part of the appellants and in the consequential termination of the contract. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that, if the appellant has got any grievances in this regard, the same has to be agitated and adjudicated before the appropriate forum having jurisdiction in the matter, based on the rights and obligations arising out of the contract. We are of the opinion that if the appellant so chooses,
WA.No.1716 OF 2019
8
their liberty in this regard can be reserved. In that context, we think it appropriate to leave open all the contentions raised by the appellant for agitation before any appropriate forum. However, we do not find any error or illegality committed by the learned Judge in dismissing the writ petition. 6. Therefore, the above Writ Appeal deserves no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, we make it clear that if the appellant chooses to challenge Ext.P14 before any appropriate forum, it will be left open to the appellant to agitate all the contentions raised in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal. If any such form is approached by the appellant, that forum shall decide the issues independently, untrammeled by any of the observations contained in the impugned judgment.
Sd/ - C.K. ABDUL REHIM Acting Chief Justice
Sd/-R. NARAYANA PISHARADI Judge.
lsn/kkb.
WA.No.1716 OF 2019
9
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.2459/12 FIN DTD 22.03.2012.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
LSN
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the termination of the dredging contract by the Government was lawful given the dispute over measurement methods.
Whether the High Court can adjudicate disputes regarding contractual interpretation and factual circumstances during writ proceedings.
Whether the Single Judge committed any error in refusing to interfere with the administrative decision to terminate the contract.
SOUTHERN DREDGING COMPANY (P) LTD.
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT COSTAL SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION (A) DEPARTMENT
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
