Disposed

M.T Abdul Zubair, v. the Kerala State Rural Roads Development Agency

Kerala HC24 Jul 2024WP(C)/26406/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the rescission of a public works contract, the court directed the respondent agency to consider the petitioner's petition explaining delays, afford a hearing, and pass appropriate orders. Further proceedings pursuant to the termination order were kept in abeyance. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent directed to consider the petitioner's petition, afford a hearing, pass appropriate orders; further proceedings on Ext.P3 stay pending.

M.T Abdul Zubair, Vs the Kerala State Rural Roads… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 26406 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

M.T ABDUL ZUBAIR,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O M.T ABDUL RAHMAN HAJI, AGED 48 YEARS, BEVINJE,
THEKKIL FERRY, P.O CHENGALA, KASARGODE,, PIN - 671541
BY ADVS.
V.PREMCHAND
HALIYA T.P.
MAHADEV M.J.

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 THE KERALA STATE RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, 3RD FLOOR, REVENUE COMPLEX, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPOUND, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER, PIN - 695003

¶10

2THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, 3RD FLOOR, REVENUE COMPLEX,
PUBLIC OFFICE COMPOUND, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695003

¶11

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION UNIT (PIU) DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PATTOM, P.O, KERALA., PIN – 695004

¶12

SRI. SUNIL KURIAKOSE, GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 26406 OF 2024

¶15

-2-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The writ petition is preferred aggrieved by Ext.P3 order issued by the 2^nd respondent, whereby, the contract awarded to the petitioner was rescinded on the basis of alleged delay occurred on the part of the petitioner in completing the work.

¶18

It is stated that the petitioner is an A Class contractor who has successfully executed various works under the Public Works Department as well as Local Self Government Department of Kerala. In the light of such experience, the petitioner was awarded with Ext.P1 contract under PMGSY-III-2021-22 (Batch-1) Package No. KR12108 MRL16-Thoppumukku-Vidya mount School – CRPF Pothencode Block, Thiruvananthapuram District, including maintenance for five years after construction.

¶19

It is further stated that the total cost of the work comes to Rs.1,79,46,399/- only. On the basis of Ext.P1 contract, the petitioner made all arrangements to commence the work, but due to bad weather conditions, he could commence the work only by December

¶20

WP(C) NO. 26406 OF 2024

¶21

-3-

¶22

In terms of the contract, the petitioner was bound to carry out the work for a total Chainage of 0-3235. From Chainage 500 to 570 and 1500-1580, the width of the road was not available to carry out the work. In fact, from Chainage 2100-2300, the pipelines were not removed by the Kerala Water Authority on time. Such pipelines were removed only by 10.06.2023 by the Kerala Water Authority. It is stated that, by the time the pipelines were removed by the Kerala Water Authority, rainy season commenced and the work could not be progressed smoothly. It is also stated that the petitioner has completed the work from Chainage 0-2534 and what remains to be done in the above Chainage is only one more layer of Metal laying and Bitumen. It is further stated that due to delay in handing over the site and also non-availability of the site in certain areas, the work could not be completed. In such circumstances, alleging non completion of work, the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P3 order rescinding the agreement, in which, it is stated that:

¶23

a. Rescind the contract as aforesaid on which rescission, your security deposit of work and performance guarantee stands

¶24

WP(C) NO. 26406 OF 2024

¶25

-4-

¶26

absolutely forfeited to Government.

¶27

b. The contractor has to remit the employees additional cost for completing the work, i.e., 200% of uncompleted work to this office within 30 days of intimation of the amount.

¶28

c. Payment upon termination will be as per clause 53 of General Conditions of the contract and sub clause there under the Standard Bidding Document. You are also hereby served with notice to the effect that the work executed by you will be measured upon the date which will be intimated to you separately for which you are asked to attend for joint measurement failing which the work will be measured by the department unilaterally in your absence and results of the measurement will be final and will be binding on you.

¶29

d. You may stop the work immediately, make the site safe and secure and leave the site as soon as reasonably possible.

¶30

It is further stated that this is without prejudice the Government’s right to take action under any other clauses or sub-clauses of the Agreement and to realize Government’s dues, losses and damages what so ever under such clauses or sub-clauses.

¶31

WP(C) NO. 26406 OF 2024

¶32

-5-

¶33

The learned Government Pleader submits that it is only because of the delay occurred from the part of the petitioner the work could not be completed. The work has to be completed within a time schedule, otherwise it will affect the public at large. In such circumstances, to award the work to some other contractor for completing the same within the time schedule, Ext.P3 order was issued to the petitioner.

¶34

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and considered the submission on both sides.

¶35

At the same time, it is brought to my notice that the petitioner has already submitted Ext.P4 petition before the 2^nd respondent, in which, he has specifically stated the reason behind the delay occurred in completing the work and failure to fulfill the work within the time limit. Considering the same, I feel it appropriate that the 2^nd respondent shall consider Ext.P4 and pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a

¶36

WP(C) NO. 26406 OF 2024

¶37

-6-

¶38

copy of this judgment. Till a logical conclusion is taken by the 2^nd respondent, any further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance.

¶39

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶40

 Sd/-

¶41

P.M.MANOJ

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

¶44

24.07.2024

¶45

WP(C) NO. 26406 OF 2024

¶46

-7-

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26406/2024

¶48

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶49

Exhibit-P1A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
11.5.2022EXECUTEDBETWEENTHE
PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P2A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
19.6.2024 DIRECTING HIM TO ATTEND A
HEARING ON 25.6.2024
Exhibit-P3A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
05.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P4A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
09.07.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

M.T Abdul Zubair, v. the Kerala State Rural Roads Development Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.T Abdul Zubair, v. the Kerala State Rural Roads Development Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.P.Jayaprakash Vs the District Collector, Alappuzha

Kavalakkatt Sebastian Paul Vs the State of Kerala

Mariamma K.J Vs the Administrator, Pallithode Service Co-Operative Bank

Latheef V.P Vs State of Kerala

Rifash Vs Union of India

Balagopal C.K. Vs Station House Officer

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

M.P.Jayaprakash Vs the District Collector, Alappuzha

Kavalakkatt Sebastian Paul Vs the State of Kerala

Mariamma K.J Vs *the Administrator, Pallithode Service Co-Operative Bank*

Latheef V.P Vs State of Kerala

Rifash Vs Union of India

Balagopal C.K. Vs Station House Officer

Mariamma K.J Vs the Administrator, Pallithode Service Co-Operative Bank