Kerala High Court
Haris T.A vs The State Of Kerala on 19 November, 2021
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
HARIS T.A
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O T.A.MAHIN HAJI, RESIDING AT THAYAL MALIKA HOUSE,
THEKKIL FERRY(PO) KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 541.
BY ADVS.
JAWAHAR JOSE
CISSY MATHEWS
SARUN RAJAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPREENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER
(PWD BUILDINGS), PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM
JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN (PO) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695
033.
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
(PWD BUILDINGS), NORTH CIRCLE, MANANCHIRA (PO)
KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.11.2021, THE COURT ON 19.11.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.21468 of 2021
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2021
JUDGMENT
One of the famous quote about School is like this:
"School is a building which has four walls with tomorrow inside." The schools having sufficient infrastructure including rooms and learning spaces in good condition is decisive for students to achieve the expected academic results. The term infrastructure is comprehensive and there are number of aspects that are included in it. This include play grounds, library facilities, laboratories, computer centers, technology, machinery, tools, equipments etc. When the Government is trying to increase the infrastructure of schools where our "tomorrow is inside", it is the duty of each and every citizens of this country to help the Government to achieve the targets. PWD Contractors who are constructing the school buildings and other infrastructures should be more vigilant and should WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 3 see that the works are completed within time stipulated in the contract. Contractors are not one party to a public work contract. They are also human beings. They may have school going children. While the contractors are doing the construction works in school premises, they should see the faces of innocent children who are studying in those schools waiting for better infrastructure. That is why I said that the contractors are not a party to a work contract alone, but they are also human being and hence should co-operate with the Government to see that the infrastructure constructions in schools are completed within the stipulated time. Contractors are citizen first and then only a party to a work contract. PWD contractors have got a public duty in addition to their terms and conditions in their work contract to see that the infrastructure constructions in schools entrusted to them are completed within the stipulated time.
2. The petitioner is a PWD contractor. He filed this writ petition aggrieved by a decision of respondents 2 and 3 whereby the contract work of a school building which was assigned to him stands cancelled at his risk and cost. The 3 rd WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 4 respondent invited tenders for a contract work for the construction of a school building at Government Higher Secondary School, Munderi, Kannur District. Tenders were invited during the month of October, 2020 and the tenders were opened on 4.12.2020. The petitioner was the lowest bidder and hence Ext.P1 letter dated 10.12.2020 was issued to the petitioner intimating him about his selection. Based on Ext.P1 letter, the petitioner executed an agreement with the respondents and the site was taken over by the petitioner for the work on 15.1.2021. Ext.P2 is the acknowledgment form of handing over the site to the contractor. As per Ext.P3 Project Information sheet, the time of completion of the work is 12 months. Ext.P4 is the work chart prepared as directed by the 3rd respondent.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 27.03.2021, as per Ext.P5 notice, the 3rd respondent informed that a delay occurred in the execution of the work. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P5 is issued even before completion of three months which is the first target date for achieving the work milestone of 25%. According to the petitioner, the WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 5 general election of the State legislative assembly was on 06.04.2021 and the premises of the Government Higher Secondary School, Munderi was one of the poling booths in the Kannur constituency and the work could not be executed for about two weeks from 27.03.2021 to 10.04.2021. The petitioner produced Ext.P5(a) to show that the above school is a poling station for the general election. It is the further case of the petitioner that, even though the work was resumed on 12.04.2021, from 06.05.2021 the Government of Kerala declared complete lock down in Kerala due to Covid 19 pandemic which continued up to 09.06.2021. Exts.P6 to P9 are the orders. It is the case of the petitioner that, during the lock down period itself, the 3 rd respondent issued Ext.P10 order terminating the contract at the risk and cost of the petitioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that even though letter dated 03.05.2021 and letter dated 25.05.2021 of the Executive Engineer, PWD Building Division, Thalassery and also another letter dated 10.05.2021 of the Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Munderi are referred in Ext.P10, the same was not served to the petitioner. The WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 6 petitioner challenged Ext.P10 before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent issued orders on 20.07.2021, whereby the termination of work was revoked on condition that the petitioner shall deposit the security amount as specified in the PWD manual. Ext.P11 is the order. The petitioner again submitted Ext.P12 to review Ext.P11. But the 3 rd respondent replied to Ext.P12 directing the petitioner to deposit 30% of the balance work as security as prescribed in PWD manual for continuing the work. Ext.P13 is the letter. Ext.P14 is the subsequent letter issued to pay the security deposit. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent invited fresh tenders for the same work as per Ext.P16. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P5 notice was issued to the petitioner before completing three months from the date on WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 7 which the worksite was handed over to the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the first work milestone target of 25% will end only after three months from the date of handing over of the worksite. Even before completing the three months, Ext.P5 is issued and that itself shows that there is malafide intention to terminate the contract on the part of the respondents. The counsel also submitted that because of the general election to the legislative assembly the work was stalled for two weeks. The counsel takes me through Ext.P5(a) in which it is stated that the Government Higher Secondary School, Munderi is a polling booth. The counsel also takes me through Exts.P6 to P9 to show that there was complete lock down in the State from 06.05.2021 to 09.06.2021. There was no manpower available during this period and because of the complete lock down, no civil work was possible or even imagine during that period because of the situation at that time, is the submission of the petitioner. The counsel also submitted that Ext.P10 order is passed without serving the notices referred in that order. It is also submitted that Ext.P11 order directing the petitioner to WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 8 deposit 30% of the balance work as security is unjustified. According to the counsel, once the above offer is accepted, then the petitioner has to concede that there is delay in completing the work. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner completed the targeted milestone as per the work schedule, if the lock down period and the general election period is excluded. It is the definite case of the petitioner that if a measurement as per paragraph 2109 of PWD manual is done, it will be clear that the petitioner attained the targeted milestone. It is also the case of the petitioner that the other contractors too have not done any work during the period from 08.05.2021 to 09.06.2021 as there was complete lock down and they were allowed to do the work after the lockdown period and now they completed 80% of their work. Since the petitioner's contract was terminated on 28.05.2021, the petitioner could not continue with the work and otherwise the petitioner could also have completed 80% of work like other contractors. It is the definite case of the petitioner that he undertakes to complete the work within a period of six months from the date of WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 9 re-entrustment of the worksite, if the order of termination is revoked by the competent authority.
6. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, opposed the contentions of the petitioner. The Government Pleader takes me through the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent and also the exhibits produced along with the counter affidavit. The Government Pleader submitted that the administrative sanction for this work was on 30.10.2020 for an amount of Rs.225 lakhs. The agreement was executed with the petitioner on 07.01.2021. The Government Pleader takes me through Ext.R3(b), which is the contract data in which the work milestone is mentioned. The Government Pleader submitted that, by the end of three months from the date on which the land was handed over, 25% of the work ought to have been completed. Similarly, by the end of six months, 50% of the work including completion of building structure is to be completed. Thereafter, by the end of nine months, 75% of the work is to be completed and by the end of twelve months, 100% of work is to be WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 10 completed. The Government Pleader submitted that even though several reminders were sent before Ext.P5, there is no response from the petitioner and that is why Ext.P10 order was passed. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent, it is stated that before Ext.P5 letter, many letters were issued to the petitioner from Section Office, Sub Division Office and Division Office. But none of those letters were produced along with the counter affidavit. Ext.R3(c) is a letter issued by the Executive Engineer and that is dated 03.05.2021 and the same is subsequent to Ext.P5. Thereafter it is stated that Ext.R3(d) was issued. But, on perusal of Ext.R3(d), it seems that that the same is Ext.P5 itself. Thereafter, along with the counter affidavit, Ext.R3(e) is produced to show that there is a letter from the Executive Engineer to the petitioner on 03.05.2021. Again it seems that Ext.R3(e) is the same letter, which is produced as Ext.R3(c). I don't understand why the letter dated 03.5.2021 is produced as Exts.R3(c) and R3(e). Thereafter, Ext.R3(f) is produced along with the counter and the Government Pleader submitted that in Ext.R3(f), the Principal of the WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 11 School informed the 3rd respondent that there is no men or machinery in the worksite as on 10.05.2021. But it is to be noted that, 10.05.2021 is a day on which lock down is in force as evident by Ext.P6. But the Goverment pleader submitted that as per clause 17 of Annexure to Ext.P6 will show that construction and maintenance works is permitted. But the question is whether the workers were ready to do the work during such pandamic situation. The Government Pleader submitted that the machineries and equipments imported and purchased for installation in the school are kept idle and that is why the petitioner was directed to complete the work immediately and when the petitioner refused to complete the work, Ext.P10 was issued. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that on 27.05.2021 the Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Principal of the said school and PTA Secretary, conducted a joint inspection at the worksite and assessed the ground situation. The Government Pleader submitted that there was no men and machinery available at the site on 27.05.2021 and there was no representative from the part of the contractor. WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 12 Hence, Ext.P10 was issued. At this stage also, it is to be remembered that as per Ext.P8, the lock down was extended till 30.05.2021 and on the date on which the inspection was conducted it was admittedly a lock down day. The Government Pleader also takes me through Exts.R3(h) and R3(i) which are the relevant portions of general condition of contract. The Government Pleader submitted that as per clause 20.7.(b) if the progress of any portion of the work is unsatisfactory, the engineer-in-charge, after giving the contractor 15 days notice in writing, without canceling or terminating the contract, shall be entitled to employ another agency for executing the jobs or to carryout the work departmentally or contractually through tendering process, either fully or partly, debiting the contractor with cost involved in engaging another agency or with the cost of labour and price of materials as the case may be. It is the specific case of the Government Pleader that there was no restriction to the already started work as per the model code of conduct, which came into existence during the general election period. It is also submitted by the Government WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 13 Pleader that the other works under the MUDRAA projects executed by the other agencies like Nirmithi Kendra, Kannur, Unique Builders Kannur, Rubco, ULCCS Vadakara etc., were progressing in the same campus and the work was stalled only for a period of two days in connection with the election and restarted on 07.04.2021. No other delay was there at the site in connection with the legislative assembly election. It is also submitted that Ward Nos.6 and 7 of Munderi Grama Panchayat, where the School was situated, were not a containment zone in 2021. The Government Pleader submitted that the contractor completed only 11% of the work and this shows that the work was delayed due to the default from the part of the contractor and not due to the lock down. The Government Pleader submitted that even though Ext.R3(j) was issued by the Chief Engineer [Ext.P11 is produced as Ext.R3(j)] the petitioner refused to accept that offer. Ext.R3(k) is the programme schedule and Ext.P4 is also the same. According to the Government Pleader, the petitioner failed to complete the work within the schedule and therefore, Ext.P10 was issued and even after Ext.P11, WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 14 the petitioner refused to accept the same and refused to resume the work. The Government Pleader also submitted that even the writ petition is filed after a long period and the refusal on the part of the petitioner to resume the work will show that he is negligent and not interested to do the work. Hence, the Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
7. I considered the contentions of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The work allotted to the petitioner is the construction of school building and other allied work at Government Higher Secondary School, Munderi, Kannur District. The question to be decided is whether the termination of contract as per Ext.P10 by the 3 rd respondent is sustainable or not. For better understanding of the facts the following dates and events will be helpful. WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 15
Sl.No. Events Date
Administrative Sanction
1 30.10.20
granted for the work
Intimation from the 3rd
respondent to the petitioner
2 10.12.20
about the acceptance of the
tender
Agreement executed with the
3 07.01.21
petitioner
The worksite handed over to
4 15.01.21
the petitioner
i) End of 3 months 25%
ii) End of 6 months
50% including
Work milestone as per completion of building
5
Exhibit R(3)(b). structure
iii) End of 9 months
75%
iii) End of 12 months
100%
6 First reminder letter(Ext P5) 27.03.21
General Election to State
7 06.04.21
Legislative Assembly
Letter No.D5/BL/2020/6194
by the Executive Engineer,
8 03.05.21
Building Division, Thalassery,
to the petitioner
GO (Rt.) No. 404/21/DMD
declaring the lockdown in the
9 06.05.21
State from 08.05.21 till
16.05.21(Ext P6)
WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 16
Letter No.104/MW of the
10 10.05.21
Principal Govt.HSS, Munderi
GO (Rt.) No. 416/2021/DMD
11 extending the lockdown from 14.05.21
17.05.21 to 23.05.21.(Ext P7)
GO (Rt.) No. 432/2021/DMD
12 extending the lockdown from 21.05.21
24.05.21 to 30.05.21(Ext P8)
Letter No. A1 Gen/2021 from
13 25.05.21
the Executive Engineer
14 Site inspection 27.05.21
Order cancelling the
15 28.05.21
contract.(Ext.P10)
GO (Rt.) No. 444/2021/DMD
16 extending the lockdown from 29.05.21
31.05.21 to 09.06.21.(Ext P7)
Letter from the petitioner to
17 09.06.21
the Chief Engineer
Letter
No.CE/BL/KNR/65178/2021
of the Chief Engineer
18 23.07.21
revoking the contract on
payment of security amount.
(Ext P11)
Re-tender notice [GO(Rt.)
19 31.07.21
No.1444/2021/LSGD]
20 Representation by the 12.08.21
petitioner to review the
WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 17
order dated 23.07.21(P11) of
the Chief Engineer
Letter from the 3rd
21 respondent to pay 30% of the 31.08.21
balance work as security
The rejection of the prayer to
lift the payment of security
22 20.09.21
deposit as per letter
No.DB2/BL/2020/6194(P14)
8. From the above dates and events, it is clear that the worksite was handed over to the petitioner on 15.01.2021. The question to be decided is whether the petitioner completed the work milestone narrated in Ext.R3(b) contract data. The petitioner says that he completed the targeted work, if the period during which the school was closed in connection with the General Election and the period during which the lockdown was declared is excluded. According to the petitioner, Ext.P10 order is passed based on an inspection conducted on 27.05.2021. Ext.P10 is dated 28.05.2021. Admittedly, 27.05.2021 is a lockdown day as evident by Ext.P8. According to the petitioner, the employees were not available for carrying out WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 18 the work and there is complete restriction for doing the civil works during this period. On the other hand, the Government Pleader based on the affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent and also based on clause 17 of the Annexure to Ext P6 submitted that there is absolutely no prohibition in doing the civil works during this period and similar works were completed by the other agencies in the same School itself. Therefore, the Government Pleader submitted that there is nothing to interfere in Ext.P10. It is true that clause 17 of Ext P6 excluded construction and maintenance work from lockdown. But the question is whether man power was available during that period because of the pandemic situation. It was a reality that people were afraid to come out of the house during that period. A perusal of Ext.P10 and other documents will show that the inspection of the worksite by the authorities of respondents are in the absence of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, no notice was given to the petitioner and he was not available at the worksite because of the lockdown. On the other hand, the official respondents says that there was nobody to represent the WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 19 petitioner at the worksite and it is the duty of the contractor to be present at the worksite at any time and the officials are duty bound to inspect the worksite. Therefore, the site inspection was conducted without giving notice to the petitioner. Ext.P5 notice is the first notice issued by the respondents. It is true that the 3 rd respondent stated in the counter affidavit that several letters and reminders were sent to the petitioner before Ext.P5, but nothing is produced before this Court to show that there were any such letters or reminders from the side of the respondent. Ext.P5 is dated 27.03.2021, i.e. within two months and 7 days from the date on which the worksite was handed over to the petitioner as per Ext.P2. If we peruse Ext.R3(b), the first work milestone of 25% of work is by the end of three months from the date on which the worksite was handed over. That means, the first work milestone is to be completed on or before 14.04.2021. Admittedly, Ext.P5 notice is on 27.03.2021. Thereafter, the site inspection was on 27.05.2021 based on which Ext.P10 order cancelling the contract was passed. Admittedly, the site inspection was conducted in the absence of the WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 20 petitioner. As I stated earlier, the petitioner is confident even now to the effect that, if the measurement of the work is taken as per paragraph 2109 of PWD Manual, it will be clear that the petitioner completed the required percentage of work within the said time schedule. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the reply affidavit, which deals about the above aspect.
"As the worksite was handed over to the contractor on 15-1-2021, the 3 months period expires on 14-4- 2021. The petitioner has completed the required percentage of work within the said time schedule and the same can be ascertained, if any agency like CPWD is entrusted with the said task. That apart, the 3rd respondent has not measured the quantity of works done by the contractor, in accordance with the stipulation in the PWD manual. As per paragraph 2109 of the said manual, every measurement shall be taken by the officer in the presence of the contractor or his authorized agent, and that the signature of the contractor shall be obtained in the measurement book as a token of his acceptance. In the case in hand, no notice was sent to the petitioner, till this day, intimating the intention to take measurement. Thus, the assertion in the counter affidavit that the contractor has completed only 11% of the total work is incorrect."
9. The relevant portion of paragraph 2109 of PWD Manual, Revised Edition, 2020 is extracted hereunder :
"Payment for the works within the TS powers of the Superintending Engineer shall be based on measurements recorded at various stages of the WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 21 work by the Overseer/ Assistant Engineer as the case may be and duly checked by superior officers. The contractor or his authorised agent shall be present at the time of recording of each set of measurements and shall sign the measurement book and/or level field book in token of his acceptance. If the contractor fails to be present at the time of taking measurements either in person or through his authorised agent or fails to accept the measurements or file objections to the measurements with reasons before check measurement, the measurements taken by the Engineer / Overseer shall be deemed to be correct subject to check measurements."
10. I think the dispute can be resolved, if an inspection is conducted by the competent authorities of respondents with notice to the petitioner and measure the work already done by the petitioner. After assessing the work already done and after excluding the period during which there was absolute lockdown, during which period no civil work can be done and also during the period, during when the General Election was conducted in the state, I think the matter can be solved. I am taking such a stand because it is a construction of a School building and other amenities to the School. A contractor is already appointed and according to him, he started the work. The respondents also concedes that the work already started and 11% of the work completed. WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 22 But, the work milestone as per Ext.R3(b) is not attained by the petitioner-contractor. The petitioner says that he attained the work milestone, if the period during which there was absolute lockdown and the days on which the General Election was conducted in the State is excluded from the above period. This can be easily find out by the authorities concerned. There is no other allegation against the petitioner-contractor except the fact that the petitioner has not completed the work within the time frame fixed in Ext.R3(b). If this is detected, the re-tendering of the work and other formalities can be avoided. If Ext.P16 re-tendering proceedings is to be continued, it will be again delayed. A new contractor has to be found out, the agreement has to be executed, the site is to be handed over and he has to start and complete the work. The ultimate beneficiaries of the work is the students. I am also taking note of the averments in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, in which it is specifically stated that, the petitioner is ready to complete the work within a period of six months from the date of re- entrustment of the worksite. Therefore, according to me, WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 23 without interfering with Ext.P10 and P11 orders, there can be a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the 3rd respondent to reconsider Ext P10. The 3rd respondent and the other officers can inspect the worksite with notice to the petitioner and measure the work already done by the petitioner and find out whether the work milestone as per Ext.R3(b) is attained by the petitioner. Of course, while assessing the work milestone as per Ext.R3(b), the 3rd respondent will consider to excude the days during which there was absolute lockdown in the State, by which the civil works are prohibited and also the days on which the School premises was given to the officials of the Election Commission, in connection with the General Election. Based on such measurement, the 3rd respondent can decide whether Ext.P10 is to be reconsidered or not. The 3 rd respondent will take a pragmatic approach in the matter, considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case. I once again make it clear that it is the discretion of the 3 rd respondent to pass appropriate orders in the representation. But, the 3 rd respondent will consider the delay that will occur if the re- WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 24 tendering process based on Ext.P16 is continued. Therefore, without interfering with Exts.P10 and P11, there can be a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the 3rd respondent to review Ext.P10 order with a request to measure the work already done by the petitioner after giving notice to him. Based on the same, the respondents can decide whether Ext.P10 is to be reviewed or not. There is already an interim order staying further proceedings consequent to Ext P16. The same can be continued till final orders are passed by the 3rd respondent in the representation.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner :
1) The petitioner will submit a representation before the 3rd respondent narrating his contentions and grounds to review Ext.P10 order and also requesting the 3 rd respondent to conduct a site inspection, with notice to the petitioner. The representation, if any shall be filed within 5 days from today.WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 25
2) Once such a representation is received, the 3 rd respondent will consider the same and conduct a site inspection with notice to the petitioner and measure the work already done by the petitioner in accordance to paragraph 2109 of PWD Manual.
3) Based on the inspection and also based on the contentions and grounds mentioned by the petitioner in the representation, the 3rd respondent will decide, whether to review Ext.P10 or not.
4) The above exercise should be completed by the 3 rd respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation because the construction proposed is for a School building and the amenities in the School.
Therefore, the 3rd respondent will decide the matter immediately, without any delay.
WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 26
5) If the representation is submitted as directed above, all further proceedings based on Ext P16 should be kept it abeyance till a decision is taken in the representation.
6) Issue a copy of this judgment today itself.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE DAS dm SKS WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 27 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21468/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM DATED 15.1.2021 EVIDENCING THE HANDING OVER OF THE WORK SITE Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTRACT WORK ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROGRAM SCHEDULE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE POLLING STATIONS IN KANNUR CONSTITUENCY DATED NIL Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.5.2021 BEARING NUMBER GO (RT)404/2021/DMD Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.5.2021 BEARING NUMBER GO(RT) 416/2021/DMD Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.5.2021 BEARING NUMBER GO(RT) 432/2021/DMD Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.5.2021 BEARING NUMBER GO(RT) 444/2021/DMD Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.5.2021 WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 28 BEARING NUMBER EB2/BL/2020/6194 Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.7.2021 BEARING NUMBER CE/BL/KNR/65178/2021 Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.8.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.8.2021 BEARING NUMBER DB2/BL/2020/6194 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.9.2021 BEARING NUMBER DB2/BL/2020/6194 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TOGETHER WITH THE POSTAL COVER Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE TRACKING DETAILS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF POSTAL DEPARTMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSIGNMENT BEARING NUMBER RL467614678IN Exhibit P15(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MANUAL (REVISED EDITION 2012) Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2.10.2021 INVITING TENDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.7.2021 BEARING NUMBER 1444/2021/LSGD WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 29 RESPONDENTS EXTS:
EXT.R3(A) COPY OF THE DOCUMENT MADE BY MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT SRI.K.K.RAGESH EXT.R3(B) COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF CONTRACT DATA EXT.R3(C) COPY OF LETTER DTD.3.5.2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
EXT R3(D) COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.27.3.2021 EXT R3(E) COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
EXT R3(F) COPY OF LETTER DTD 10.5.2021 EXT R3(G) COPY OF THE LIST OF MACHINERIES AND
EQUIPMENTS IMPORTED AND PURCHASED FOR INSTALLATION IN SCHOOL WHICH ARE IDLING. EXT R3(H) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE CONTRACT EXT R3(I) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF SBD EXT R3(J) COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 23.7.2021 EXT R3(K) COPY OF THE PROGRAMME SCHEDULE OF THE WORK WHICH FORM PART OF THE CONTRACT.
/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE