Kerala High Court
Aji Peter vs State Of Kerala on 12 April, 2023
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 7691 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
AJI PETER
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. K.P. PATHROSE, KURUMPALAKKAT HOUSE, NECHOOR P.O.,
PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM - 681064, PIN - 681064
BY ADVS.
SANTHOSH MATHEW
ARUN THOMAS
KARTHIKA MARIA
ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
VEENA RAVEENDRAN
MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS
ABI BENNY AREECKAL
KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW
MANASA BENNY GEORGE
KARTHIK RAJAGOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO. 377, 1ST FLOOR, MAIN BLOCK,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001, PIN - 695001
2 CHIEF ENGINEER
PWD ROADS DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033,
3 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD ROADS, NORTH CIRCLE
PWD COMPLEX, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673001,
4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS
3RD FLOOR, PWD COMPLEX, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673001,
PIN - 673001
5 ASSISTANT ENGINEER
PWD ROADS, THODANNUR, VADAKARA - 673101, PIN - 673101
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).11685/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 11685 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
AJI PETER
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. K.P. PATHROSE, KURUMPALAKKAT HOUSE, NECHOOR P.O.,
PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 681064
BY ADVS.
SANTHOSH MATHEW
KARTHIKA MARIA
ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
ABI BENNY AREECKAL
ARUN THOMAS
MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS
KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO. 377, 1ST FLOOR, MAIN BLOCK,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 CHIEF ENGINEER,
PWD ROADS DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
PWD ROADS, NORTH CIRCLE, PWD COMPLEX, MANANCHIRA,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001
4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD ROADS 3RD FLOOR, PWD COMPLEX, MANANCHIRA,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001
5 ASSISTANT ENGINEER
PWD ROADS, THODANNUR, VADAKARA, PIN - 673101
6 SHRI. AJITH RAMACHANDRAN
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695033.
W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 3
7 SHRI. E.G. VISWAPRAKASH
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD ROADS, NORTH
CIRCLE, PWD COMPLEX, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).7691/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 4
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2023 The captioned writ petitions are filed by one and the same person, a contractor engaged by the Public Works Department of the State Government to execute the work, "Improvements to Kavil Theekkunni Kuttiadi road 1/170 to 9/400 in Kozhikode District", as per Exhibit P1 letter of acceptance (LOA) dated 9.11.2021. Pursuant to Exhibit P1, petitioner executed Exhibit P2 agreement dated 7.12.2021 with the Chief Engineer, PWD Roads Division, Thiruvananthapuram. Exhibit P2 (a) is the general conditions of contract and other terms and conditions made applicable to the work. As is discernible from the documents produced, the agreed contract price of the work was Rs.3,09,88,953/- and the work was to be completed within 6 months.
2. In W.P.(C) No.7691/2023, petitioner seeks to quash Exhibit P20 order passed by the Superintending Engineer, PWD Roads Division, North Circle, Kozhikode - the 3rd respondent, dated 25.2.2023 inviting a fresh tender to carry out the balance work awarded to the petitioner, after terminating the contract of the petitioner, since the petitioner failed to complete the work in terms of the contract. The petitioner also seeks to quash Exhibit P12 order passed by the 3 rd respondent dated 3.1.2023, whereby the work awarded to the petitioner as per the agreement W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 5 dated 20.12.2021 was terminated at the risk and cost of the petitioner. So also petitioner seeks to quash Exhibit P17 order dated 8.2.2023 of the Chief Engineer, PWD Roads Division, Thiruvananthapuram - the 2 nd respondent, whereby the Chief Engineer considered the representation submitted by the petitioner on the basis of the directions issued in the judgement in W.P.(C) No.1518 of 2023 dated 17.1.2023, and rejected the same. Petitioner has also sought for other consequential reliefs like a direction to permit the petitioner to complete the work by providing necessary security.
3. W.P.(C) No.11685 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exhibit P21 order dated 14.3.2023 of the Chief Engineer, PWD Roads Division, Thiruvananthapuram - the 2nd respondent, whereby the Chief Engineer has suspended the opening of the new tender for a period of 10 days; wherein the petitioner also seeks to quash Exhibit P22 order of the Chief Engineer dated 27.3.2023, whereby the request made by the contractor in a representation to extend the time for completion of the work by providing 30% performance guarantee for the balance work as directed by this Court as per a judgment dated 20.2.2023 in W.P.(C) No.5488/2023 was declined. Petitioner has also sought for certain consequential reliefs in the said writ petition.
4. As I have pointed out above, the time for completion of the work was six months from the date of execution of the agreement. The case of the petitioner is that the work could not be completed on time due to the failure on the part of the W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 6 respondents. It is further submitted that the petitioner preferred various representations before the respondents in order to satisfy the precondition for obtaining financial arrangements. It is further submitted that due to onset of the monsoon and continuous heavy rains made it impossible for the petitioner to execute the reminder of the work; even it is submitted that the petitioner made an attempt to recommence the work, but he was unable to do so due to the rain and adverse impact it created on the site. It is also the case of the petitioner that the area in which the work was taking place is highly susceptible to water logging due to which, the petitioner was unable to carry on with the work smoothly, continuously and effectively. It is further submitted that due to the heavy rains, severe damages occurred to the work already executed by the petitioner, and further that the drainage is insufficient on either side of the work, which led to storm water flowing over it and washing away some of the work done, onto the paddy fields on one side of the road.
5. That apart it is contended that due to the continuous rains, the concerned Engineers also gave oral instructions to the petitioner not to proceed with the work for the time being. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is that on 21.6.2022, as per Exhibit P7 letter dated nil, petitioner applied for extension of time for completion by six months but only three months time extension was granted with fine. According to the petitioner, during the extended period, petitioner was unable to resume the work due to rains. Moreover, it is submitted that the bills raised by W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 7 the petitioner for the work done had not been cleared by the respondents. It is the further case of the petitioner that it was due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner that the work could not be completed within the time period.
6. While so, Exhibit P10 letter dated 11.11.2022 was issued by the Assistant Engineer, PWD Roads Division, Vadakara, directing the petitioner to recommence the work, failing which, it was made clear that the work would be terminated at the risk and cost of the petitioner. But the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was unable to recommence the work due to the climatic conditions and therefore, the petitioner sought for further extension of time upto 30.3.2023 as per Exhibit P11 letter dated 2.12.2022. But the Superintending Engineer - the 3 rd respondent, not only refused extension but also issued Exhibit P12 order dated 3.1.2023, terminating the work at the risk and cost of the petitioner, also imposing liquidated damages on the petitioner apart from stating that the performance guarantee provided by the petitioner is forfeited. The 3rd respondent also directed all payment authorities to withhold the payment to the petitioner.
7. Anyhow, on receipt of Exhibit P12 order, petitioner submitted Exhibit P13 representation dated 6.1.2023 before the Chief Engineer - the 2 nd respondent, seeking revocation of Exhibit P12 and also undertaking that, if Exhibit P12 is revoked, he will complete the balance work within a month. Petitioner has also submitted a similar representation to the 3rd respondent, evident from Exhibit P14. According to the petitioner, no action was taken on the representations and W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 8 thereupon, petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.1518/2023 before this Court, challenging Exhibit P12 order and also seeking directions for consideration of the request for revocation of termination and seeking protection from coercive steps. The said writ petition was disposed of as per a judgement dated 17.1.2023, directing the Chief Engineer to take a reasoned decision on the representation, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the judgement, evident from Exhibit 15.
8. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that in compliance with the directions contained in Exhibit P15 judgement, the Chief Engineer held a hearing on 8.2.2023 and passed Exhibit P16 order on the same day, basically holding that sufficient time was given to the petitioner for completing the work and even after repeated instructions of the departmental officers, petitioner did not take any efforts to carry out the work within the extended period. Therefore, the decision taken by the Superintending Engineer to terminate the work does not require reconsideration. However, it is specified in the said order that, even if the request of the petitioner to revoke the termination of the contract to be considered by a deposit of performance guarantee of 30% of the balance work to be completed as per the PWD Manual clause 2116.2.2, the petitioner expressed his unwillingness to deposit the amount due to his financial constraints. Therefore, on that ground also the revocation need not be considered.
9. The case of the petitioner is that the 2 nd respondent failed to consider W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 9 many critical aspects raised by the petitioner and therefore, Exhibit P16 is bad. Therefore, the contention advanced by the petitioner is that the petitioner could not submit the performance guarantee of 30% of the balance work to be completed since there was no sufficient liquidity to submit the performance guarantee due to the petitioner's bills for the works done till date as well as another work was pending. However, it is submitted that on 11.1.2023, the Assistant Engineer has issued Exhibit P17 letter to the petitioner confirming that the petitioner is entitled to receive Rs.84,60,738/- for the work in question and Rs.62,72,633/- for another work in the same PWD Circle as of October, 2022. It is also the case of the petitioner that there is unmeasured work that the petitioner has executed for almost Rs.50,00,000/- and therefore, that is also to be measured, billed, certified and paid.
10. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention advanced by the petitioner is that the balance work would only be worth around Rs.1.5 Crores and therefore, it is more than sufficient to cover the 30% of the performance guarantee to be offered for the balance work to be done. Being so, it is contended that the 2nd respondent was at liberty to adjust 30% towards the performance guarantee from the bill amount due to the petitioner and the failure on the part of the 2 nd respondent to consider the same clearly establishes that there is non application of mind and therefore, Exhibit P16 order is arbitrary and illegal.
11. Again, the petitioner has submitted Exhibit P18 representation dated W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 10 14.2.2023 before respondent Nos.2 to 4, to withhold 30% from the bill amount due to the petitioner in lieu of the additional performance guarantee. Therefore, it is contended that aggrieved by the above circumstances, petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5488 of 2023, seeking to quash Exhibit P12 and P16 orders and for a direction to revoke the termination, and permit the petitioner to complete the balance work on the basis of clause 2116.2.2. of the PWD Manual by furnishing performance guarantee for 30% of the balance work and for consideration of Exhibit P18 representation; the said writ petition was disposed of as per Exhibit P19 judgement dated 20.2.2023, directing the Chief Engineer, PWD Roads Division, Thiruvananthapuram, to finalise Exhibit P18 representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgement. In the said judgement, the petitioner was granted liberty to put forth securities that are prepared to be given by the petitioner before consideration of Exhibit P18 representation.
12. According to the petitioner, thereafter the 3rd respondent has invited a fresh tender as per Exhibit P20 dated 25.2.2023, which according to the petitioner, is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the directions contained in Exhibit P19 judgement. It is accordingly that the new tender is sought to be quashed. As I have pointed out above, in W.P.(C) No.11685 of 2023, petitioner is challenging Exhibit P21 order of the Chief Engineer dated 14.3.2023 on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court in the connected writ petition - W.P.(C) No.7691/2023, W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 11 whereby the Special Government Pleader submitted that the tender will not be opened on 8.3.2023 and it will be kept in abeyance for a period of 10 days, and it was accordingly that the tender was directed to be suspended for a period of 10 days.
13. However, in the meanwhile, the Chief Engineer has complied with the directions contained in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.5488 of 2023 dated 20.2.2023 and declined the representation submitted by the petitioner. From Exhibit P22 order, it is clear that the petitioner was heard on 8.2.2023, i.e., on the basis of the directions issued by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgement in W.P.(C) 1518/2023 dated 17.1.2023, and at that time the petitioner was informed to deposit the amount for performance guarantee of the 30% balance work to be completed but he hesitated to do so. However, it is further stated that at the time of hearing, the petitioner did not inform that he was ready to pay the deposit amount towards the performance guarantee of 30% of the balance work to be completed from the bill amounts due to the petitioner or various other PWD works, and hence, there was no other way than to reject the request of the petitioner to revoke the termination and go forward with the re-tender procedures for the expeditious completion of the project, which was awarded to the petitioner way back on 20.12.2021 with a completion period of six months.
14. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Assistant Engineer, PWD Roads, Vadakara - the 5th respondent, refuting the allegations, claims and demands W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 12 raised by the petitioner. It is contended therein that the time of completion of the work was extended upto 30.8.2022 with fine, even though the petitioner requested for extension upto 28.12.2022. It is further stated that the first and part bill was submitted by the petitioner to the Executive Engineer on 26.10.2022. A meeting was conducted by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Sub Division, Vadakara - the 5th respondent with the petitioner, wherein the contractor assured that he will restart the work by October,2022 and will complete the work before 10.11.2022, evident from Exhibit R5(b). According to the 5 th respondent, after 10.11.2022, the contractor has even failed to attend the phone calls made by the department officials. That apart, it is stated that even though the climatic conditions were favourable for the execution of the work, petitioner did not take any initiative to start the balance work. It is also submitted that the conditions of the road was very dilapidated and the public was very much disturbed with the contractor's inactive response and many accidents have taken place in the stretch in question. That apart it is stated that various complaints were made by the public, political parties, bus operators etc. with respect to the road condition and requesting to make the road traffic worthy. One of such complaints is produced as Exhibit R5(c). It is also the case of the 5 th respondent that even though several registered letters were issued to the petitioner to restart the work, petitioner did not take any effective steps and therefore, the respondents were compelled to terminate the contract. That apart, it is stated that the petitioner has informed the W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 13 Chief Engineer that he will not be able to make the payment for guarantee of 30% of the balance work, and the contentions put forth by the petitioner that he is ready to pay 30% guarantee amount by pledging his bills, the bills are yet to be released by the respondents. Other contentions are also raised to justify the order passed by the Chief Engineer declining to revoke the termination order passed by the Superintending Engineer.
15. The sum and substance of the contention is that even though sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner, the petitioner was prolonging the work by making representations after representations. Exhibit R5(e) dated 19.12.2022 is a certificate issued by one Santhula Trust Hospital, which according to the 5 th respondent, is forwarded by the petitioner, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is on treatment in the hospital since 17.12.2022 for alcohol dependence syndrome and he is recommended to be on regular medication and follow up. Contention is raised by the 5th respondent that the said certificate was forwarded by the petitioner informing the respondent that he is unable to do the work due to the medical disability. Therefore, according to the respondent, no interference is required to the order passed by the tendering authority terminating the contract of the petitioner.
16. I have heard, learned counsel for the petitioner - Sri.Santhosh Mathew, learned Special Government Pleader - Sri.K.V.Manoj Kumar and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 14
17. The elaborate discussion of facts made above would make it clear that the prime question to be considered is whether any interference is required to Exhibit P22 order passed by the Chief Engineer, PWD Roads Division, Thiruvananthapuram dated 27.3.2023 on the basis of the directions issued in the judgement of this Court in W.P.(C) No.5488 of 2023 dated 20.2.2023 ? The paramount contention advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner is that in the said judgement, liberty was granted to the petitioner to offer the securities that are prepared to be given by the petitioner before consideration of Exhibit P18 representation directed to be considered, towards performance guarantee of 30% of the balance work.
18. It is true, in Exhibit P22 order, it is stated that when a previous representation was considered consequent to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgement in W.P.(C) No.1518 of 2023 dated 17.1.2023, the petitioner failed to offer 30% of the balance work to be completed. It is clear that at the time of hearing as per the directions in the judgment in W.P. (C) No.5488/2023, even though the petitioner was granted liberty to offer any security, the petitioner did not offer the same. In my considered opinion, when there was a specific liberty granted to the petitioner to offer security, the petitioner should have offered the same from any specific bill amount or other security instead of stating that the Chief Engineer ought to have taken notice of the fact that bill amount were due to the petitioner and the performance security should W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 15 have been adjusted from the bill amounts due to the petitioner from the PWD contracts. The said findings rendered by the Chief Engineer has to be considered in the light of the submission made by the petitioner that when the hearing was conducted on the previous occasion of 8.2.2023, the petitioner stated that he is unable to provide performance guarantee of 30% for the balance work due to his financial constraints.
19. This I say because in the order dated 8.2.2023 passed as per the directions issued in W.P.(C) No.1518 of 2023, it is clearly stated that the petitioner has expressed his unwillingness to deposit the amount due to his financial constraints. It is an admitted fact that as per the agreement executed, the work had to be completed within 6 months. It is also an admitted fact that the time of completion of the work was extended by imposing fine on the petitioner. Still the petitioner submitted representation seeking further extensions. Even though this Court on two occasions directed the Chief Engineer to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner, it could be seen that the petitioner did not furnish a performance guarantee of 30% in terms of the provisions of the PWD Manual towards the security for completion of the balance work. According to the petitioner,the amount for the balance work is more than Rs.1.5 Crores, which is almost 50% of the contract price of Rs.3,09,88,935/. I have gone through the agreement executed by and between the parties and the general conditions of contract, which forms part of the agreement, wherein clear cut procedures are W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 16 prescribed in order to terminate the contract. In my considered opinion, being a commercial contract, the petitioner is duty bound to honour the obligations and the commitments undertaken in the agreement, failing which, the tendering authority is vested with ample powers to terminate the contract in terms of the agreement executed by and between the parties read with the provisions of the PWD Manual. There is no case for the petitioner that any of the terms and conditions executed by and between the parties is forbidden by law, void or made under duress coercion or any other consequences covered by the Indian Contract Act.
20. In these writ petitions, the sole question to be considered is whether there is any arbitrary, illegal or such other legal infirmities, justifying interference exercising the power of judicial discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ? Having evaluated the legal and factual situations and the terms and conditions of the contract executed by and between the parties, I am of the definite opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case of arbitrariness, illegality, irregularity, mala fides or any other such legal infirmities, justifying this Court to exercise the discretionary power.
Needless to say, the writ petitions fail, accordingly, they are dismissed.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
smv JUDGE
W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 17
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7691/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE (LOA)
DATED 09.11.2021 FOR THE WORK- "IMPROVEMENTS
TO KAVIL THEEKKUNI KUTTIADI ROAD 1/170 TO
9/400 IN KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ISSUED IN FAVOUR
OF THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 17.12.2021
EXECUTED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2(a) A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE BID
DOCUMENT FOR THE WORK AS ACCESSED BY THE
PETITIONER ON 25.09.2021.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST TO
THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO AUTHORIZE THE
ARRANGEMENT FOR FINANCING FOR THE WORK
THROUGH A NON-BANKING FINANCIAL COMPANY
(NBFC).
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED GRIEVANCE
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE NON-BANKING
FINANCIAL COMPANY DATED 11.05.2022TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S UNDERTAKING
DATED 11.05.2022 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S UNDATED
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER ON 21.06.2022.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.08.2022
SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.08.2022.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S LETTER
DATED 11.11.2022 TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED
02.12.2022 TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S ORDER
DATED 03.01.2023 ISSUED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S
REPRESENTATION DATED 06.01.2023 BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT
W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 18
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S
REPRESENTATION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
12.01.2023.
Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 17.01.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO. 1518 OF
2023.
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT'S LETTER
DATED 11.01.2023 TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S ORDER
DATED 08.02.2023 ISSUED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S
REPRESENTATION DATED 14.02.2023 BEFORE
RESPONDENT NOS. 2, 3 AND 4.
Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 20.02.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO. 5488 OF
2023 HAVING NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER
2023/KER/10204
Exhibit P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S NIT FOR
THE BALANCE WORK DATED 25.02.2023
Exhibit P21 A COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO.G.O
(RT.) NO.226/2023/FIN. DATED 11.1.2023.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit R5(b) True copy of the Minutes of the Meeting
conducted on 21.10.2022 by Assistant
Executive Engineer , PWD Road Sub Division ,
Vatakara with Contractor and Assistant
Engineer Thodannur,.
Exhibit R5(d) True copy of the notices issued by the
respondent.
Exhibit R5(e) True copy of Medical Certificate produced by
the petitioner.
Exhibit R5(a) Exhibit R5(a): True copy of Time Extension
Order No. SENCRD/431/2022-DC9-PWD dated
16.12.2022 issued by the responded No.3
Exhibit R5(c) True photostat copy of the complaints of the
road.
W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 19
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7691/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE (LOA)
DATED 09.11.2021 FOR THE WORK- "IMPROVEMENTS
TO KAVIL THEEKKUNI KUTTIADI ROAD 1/170 TO
9/400 IN KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ISSUED IN FAVOUR
OF THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 17.12.2021
EXECUTED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2(a) A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE BID
DOCUMENT FOR THE WORK AS ACCESSED BY THE
PETITIONER ON 25.09.2021.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST TO
THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO AUTHORIZE THE
ARRANGEMENT FOR FINANCING FOR THE WORK
THROUGH A NON-BANKING FINANCIAL COMPANY
(NBFC).
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED GRIEVANCE
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE NON-BANKING
FINANCIAL COMPANY DATED 11.05.2022TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S UNDERTAKING
DATED 11.05.2022 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S UNDATED
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER ON 21.06.2022.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.08.2022
SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.08.2022.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S LETTER
DATED 11.11.2022 TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED
02.12.2022 TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S ORDER
DATED 03.01.2023 ISSUED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S
REPRESENTATION DATED 06.01.2023 BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT
W.P.(C) No.7691& 11685 of 2023 20
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S
REPRESENTATION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
12.01.2023.
Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 17.01.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO. 1518 OF
2023.
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT'S LETTER
DATED 11.01.2023 TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S ORDER
DATED 08.02.2023 ISSUED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S
REPRESENTATION DATED 14.02.2023 BEFORE
RESPONDENT NOS. 2, 3 AND 4.
Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 20.02.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO. 5488 OF
2023 HAVING NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER
2023/KER/10204
Exhibit P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S NIT FOR
THE BALANCE WORK DATED 25.02.2023
Exhibit P21 A COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO.G.O
(RT.) NO.226/2023/FIN. DATED 11.1.2023.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit R5(b) True copy of the Minutes of the Meeting
conducted on 21.10.2022 by Assistant
Executive Engineer , PWD Road Sub Division ,
Vatakara with Contractor and Assistant
Engineer Thodannur,.
Exhibit R5(d) True copy of the notices issued by the
respondent.
Exhibit R5(e) True copy of Medical Certificate produced by
the petitioner.
Exhibit R5(a) Exhibit R5(a): True copy of Time Extension
Order No. SENCRD/431/2022-DC9-PWD dated
16.12.2022 issued by the responded No.3
Exhibit R5(c) True photostat copy of the complaints of the
road.