Kerala High Court
K.T Mathew & Company vs State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2026
2026:KER:8062
WP(C) No.23596 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TH
WEDNESDAY, THE 28 DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 8TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 23596 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
K.T MATHEW & COMPANY
AGED 87 YEARS
KOCHUMUTTAM CONSTRUCTIONS, AVOLI P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING
PARTNER K.T MATHEW, S/O THOMAS., PIN - 686670
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.S.BABU
SMT.N.SUDHA
SRI.BABU SHANKAR
SHRI.MENINO FUTO
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS AND BRIDGES),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (BRIDGES), NORTH CIRCLE,
THONDAYAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,, PIN - 673017
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (BRIDGES), THRIKKAKARA,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 682030
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:8062
WP(C) No.23596 of 2025
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a registered contractor and the grievances highlighted in this writ petition pertain to Ext.P12, by which, the contract entered into between the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent was terminated at the risk and cost of the petitioner. As a consequence of Ext.P12, Ext.P13 order was passed, imposing a liability of Rs.1,00,59,213.411/-, which consists of the amount of Rs.96,37,211.7/- as the liquidated damages and Rs.4,22,001.711/- as provisional risk amount being 30% of the cost of remaining work.
2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was awarded with the work namely 'Construction of Thathappilly-Valluvally bridge in North Paravur legislative constituency in Ernakulam District'. The work was notified as per the tender notification dated 05.08.2015 by the then Superintending Engineer PWD (R & B) Central Circle, Aluva) and the petitioner quoted the work at above 5.9% of the estimated amount. Ext.P1 is the selection notice, and based on the same, Ext.P2 agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the then Superintending Engineer PWD (R & B) Central Circle, Aluva) on 24.05.2016. The tenure of the agreement was for eighteen months.
2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 3
3. According to the petitioner, in fulfillment of the obligations under the contract, the petitioner completed the construction of the bridge except for the approach road, which amounts to 80%. According to the petitioner, the approach road on either side could not be completed, on account of various reasons, including the lack of hindrance free site, as the respondents failed to complete the land acquisition proceedings for acquiring the properties and give compensation to the respective owners of the said properties.
4. Besides, there were some obstructions from the part of the owners of the said properties, and this has also contributed to the factors that prevented the petitioner from completing the work. In connection with this, various communications were exchanged between the parties. The reasons highlighted by the petitioner as an explanation for not completing the work were considered in Ext P12 order passed by the 3 rd respondent. In the said order, it was noticed that, as far as the work of the approach road to be completed on the side of the Thathappilly area is concerned, the approach road at a length of 130 metres could not be completed owing to the fact that the owners of the property obstructed the said construction, as they were denied the compensation for acquiring the land. However, in Ext.P12, it was 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 4 also noticed that, as regards the other side of the bridge towards the Valluvally area, despite the fact that there was no obstruction from any party, the petitioner did not complete the work of the approach road. It was specifically observed in Ext.P12 that, nothing prevented the petitioner from completing the remaining earth filling work, GSB, WMM, tarring, etc. It was also highlighted that the petitioner failed to carry out the work of the 45m Expansion Joint on the bridge. In such circumstances, taking note of the above and the alleged failure on the part of the petitioner, the work was terminated as per Ext.P12, upon the risk and cost of the petitioner, in respect of the unfinished work on the side of the Valluvally, and the contract was terminated at the risk and cost of the petitioner as far as the said work is concerned. In the said order, since the non-completion of the work at Thathappilly was on account of the obstruction from the local people and it was not attributable to the petitioner, while terminating the work, no risk and cost was awarded to the petitioner, in respect of that portion of the work.
5. Thus, Exts.P12 and P13 communications were issued to the petitioner, observing that, as per the foreclosure schedule, the amount towards the risk and cost was determined as Rs.1,00,59,213.411/-, which includes the provisional risk amount 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 5 of Rs.4,22,001.711/-, being 30% of the cost of the remaining work, and the liquidated damages of Rs.96,37,211.7, which is calculated at the rate of 10% of the contract amount.
6. Being aggrieved by Exts.P12 and P13 the petitioner submitted a detailed representation as evidenced by Ext.P14, highlighting all his grievances. Later, as per Ext.P16, dated 29.05.2025, the petitioner issued another communication expressing his willingness to execute the balance earth filling, GSB, and WMM work on the Valluvally side, as well as Expansion Joint on the bridge as pointed out by the 3rd respondent, without prejudice to his rights to claim extra cost for the work. In the meanwhile, Ext.P17 notification was published inviting tenders for the remaining portion of the work.
7. It was in these circumstances that this writ petition was submitted seeking the following reliefs:
a) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for records leading to Exhibit P17 and quash the same as far as items 1.01,1.02,1.03,1.04 in Exhibit P17 tender notification.
b) To declare that Exhibit P12 order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent without mentioning anything about the non-
disbursement of the amount towards the value of the work already executed, non disbursement of the security deposit, earnest money deposit, retention money, performance guarantee and non disbursement of the GST amount is highly illegal, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 6 India.
c) To declare that Exhibit P17 tender notification, Appendix.A is contrary to Exhibit P18 Communication dated 30.12.2022 and vitiated by material irregularities as far as item Nos.1.01,1.02,1.03 and 1.04 are concerned.
d) To direct the respondents to pay the entire amount due in respect of the work already executed by the petitioner inclusive of retention money, security deposit, release performance guarantee, reimburse the GST amount and all other payments due.
e) To award the cost of the proceedings to the petitioner, And
f) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. A detailed counter affidavit was submitted by the 4th respondent, in response to the averments contained in the writ petition. In the said counter affidavit, the circumstances under which Exts.P12 and P13 were issued, were explained. According to the 4th respondent, there were lapses on the part of the petitioner in completing the work, and that prompted the authorities concerned to invoke their rights available under Ext.P2 agreement and other terms and conditions that are applicable to the parties, for terminating the contract and determining the amounts to be recovered from the petitioner. In response to the contention raised by the petitioner that the land acquisition proceedings were not complete, the 4th respondent produced Ext.R4(a) series of consent letters issued by the owners 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 7 of the properties, evidencing the surrender of land and permitting the construction to be carried out through their property.
9. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner in response to the averments contained in the counter affidavit, and the contentions raised by the writ petition were further clarified while answering the averments in the counter affidavit.
10. I have heard Sri. K.S. Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.V. Manoj Kumar, learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised various contentions highlighting the illegalities in the proceedings that culminated in Exts. P12 and P13. The learned counsel also contended that the respondents lack the authority to decide the question of damages unilaterally. It is reiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-completion of the work as alleged by the respondents was not at all due to the reasons attributable to the petitioner. It was pointed out that the respondents failed to complete the process of land acquisition by granting compensation to the respective land owners.
12. Apart from the above, there were trees and structures standing on the said property that were also not removed, so as to enable the petitioner to complete the work. Thus, the basic 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 8 submission made by the petitioner with regard to the sustainability in terminating the contract is that, the hindrance- free site was never handed over to the petitioner. As regards the amount of liability imposed upon the petitioner as per Ext.P13, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, under no circumstances the same be sustained. It is pointed out that, even if it is assumed for argument sake that the termination of the contract at the risk and cost of the petitioner is to be upheld, the quantification of the liability as per Ext.P13 is not legally sustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by specifically referring to the quantity of work as reflected in Ext.P2 and comparing the same with Ext.P17, which is the re-tender notification for the remaining work, pointed out that, even as per the re-tender notification, that total estimated amount is about Rs.14 Lakhs, whereas, the liability imposed upon the petitioner is more than Rupees one crore. Thus, according to the petitioner, the liquidated damages is not the reasonable estimate of the actual loss allegedly sustained by the Department. Therefore, such liability cannot be imposed upon the petitioner, without a competent authority adjudicating the actual loss. The learned counsel also vehemently contended about the lack of authority of the respondents to determine such liability unilaterally. The 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 9 learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by this Court in State of Kerala v. United Shippers and Dredgers [1982 KHC 179] and Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority and another [(2015) 4 SCC 136].
13. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader opposes the aforesaid contentions by pointing out that, as per the terms and conditions of the contract as well as the PWD manual, the respondents are entitled to determine the liability and retain the aforesaid amount from the amount payable to the contractor. Various clauses in the agreement were brought to the attention of this Court. Besides, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the delay in completing the land acquisition process were also seriously opposed. It was pointed out that, as regards the work of the approach road of Valluvally side of the bridge, there were no obstructions that stood in the way of the petitioner in completing the work. The obstructions in completing the work of the approach road were only in respect of the Thathappilly area, and in Exts.P12 and P13, no liability was imposed in respect of the said work. The decision was taken to terminate the contract at the risk and cost of the petitioner, and the amount was determined as per 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 10 the rights available to the Department, based on the terms of the contract and also in the PWD manual. Reliance was also placed on the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat through Chief Secretary and another v. Amber Builders [(2020) 2 SCC 540], a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Baby Varghese [2023(3) KHC 294] and another judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 695/2022 State of Kerala v. M/s. Kaikara Construction Company.
14. I have carefully gone through the records and considered the contentions raised by both sides. When it comes to the question of termination of contract and the determination of the amount towards the risk and cost of the petitioner, it is to be noted that, the relevant documents are Exts. P12 and P13. It is discernible from the communications exchanged between the parties before the said orders were passed and also from the representation submitted by the petitioner immediately after the issuance of Ext.P13 that, all along, the petitioner was highlighting the fact that, there were certain reasons that prevented the petitioner from completing the work. It is also not in dispute that a substantial portion of the work, approximately 80%, is already completed. To be precise, the construction of the bridge 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 11 is already substantially completed, and what remains to be completed is the approach road. One of the reasons highlighted by the petitioner is the lack of completion of land acquisition proceedings in order to enable the petitioner to complete the work of the approach road.
15. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, the specific contention of the respondent is that the initially, required lands were surrendered by the respective owners, but later, some of the land owners retracted from the said surrender, and objections were raised. In those circumstances, land acquisition proceedings were initiated and completed. However, the date on which the proceedings were completed is not specifically referred to in the said order. Even if that be so, it is discernible from the documents, including Ext.P12 that, there was no obstruction as far as the approach road on the side of the Valluvally is concerned, and the obstructions were on the other side of the bridge, namely, Thathappilly. Thus, the termination of the contract at the risk and cost of the petitioner was also confined to the work relating to the approach road at the Valluvally area where, there were no obstructions, according to the respondent.
16. Apart from the above, the petitioner had also raised various contentions with regard to the denial of GST 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 12 compensation and also the revised rates, as the term of the contract was to be extended for the reasons not attributable to the petitioner. Further, the quantification of the liability imposed as per Ext.P13 is also seriously in dispute.
17. When it comes to the question of the decision to terminate the contract at the risk and cost of the petitioner, the relevant order is Ext.P12. On closely examining the contents of Ext.P12, it is evident that, the said order was issued without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, after issuing a show-cause notice to him as to the reasons for terminating the contract at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Ext.P14 is the objections submitted by the petitioner after the issuance Ext.P13, wherein, the petitioner highlighted in detail, the circumstances under which the petitioner was prevented from completing the work. However, as of now, the same are not considered by the authorities on their merit. On going through Ext.P12, it is seen that, there is no reference of hearing of the petitioner. Therefore, on that reason, interference is required.
18. When it comes to the question of the determination of the liability of the petitioner towards the risk and costs, there also, serious disputes are raised by the petitioner. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to power 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 13 of the respondents to conduct such unilateral determination of the liability without any reference to the actual damage sustained. As mentioned above, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the contents of Exts.P1 and P17 which would indicate the extent of the work that was to be completed. In Ext.P1, the relevant works are in column No. 22, 32, 33 and 34 and quantities referred to, therein are 45 cubic mtr, 9580 cubic meters, 1042 cubic meters and 682 cubic meters respectively, whereas, the remaining works in respect of the said works are referred to in Ext.P17 at column NO. 1.01, 1.02, 1.03 and 1.04. Quantities mentioned in the aforesaid columns are 45 meters, 1610 cubic meters, 639.3750 cubic meters and 511.5 cubic meters respectively. The difference of the aforesaid would indicate that, substantial portion of the work is already completed. Besides, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the counter affidavit of the respondent, the estimate for the work in Column No.1.01, 1.02, 1.03 and 1.04 of Ext.P17 is only Rupees 14.89 lakhs, whereas, the liability of the petitioner has been fixed at more than Rupees one crore. Thus, on going through the same, there is no rational nexus forthcoming between the liability imposed upon the petitioner and the actual damage sustained.
19. Besides, there is a serious dispute with regard to the 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 14 entitlement of the respondent to determine the liability unilaterally. To substantiate the contention raised by the petitioner in this regard, reliance was placed on the observation made by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. United Shippers and Dredgers [1982 KHC 179] after interpreting Sec.73,74 and 75 of the Contract Act, it was observed that, The words in Section 74 "whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby" have been employed to underscore the departure deliberately made by Indian Legislature from the complicated principles of English Common Law and also to emphasise that reasonable compensation can be granted even in a case where extent of actual loss or damage is incapable of proof or not proved. That is why Section 74 of the Act deliberately states that what is to be awarded is reasonable compensation. Thus it was observed that, in case where the party complaining of breach of the contract has not suffered legal injury in the sense of sustaining loss or damage, there is nothing to compensate him for; there is nothing to recompense, satisfy or make amends. Therefore, he will not be entitled to compensation.
20. Thus, it was observed that, when there is no legal injury, there is no entitlement to compensation. Besides, the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority And Another [(2015) 4 SCC 136] was relied on, which was made 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 15 with reference to Sec.74 of the Contract Act, in relation to a dispute in a contract by private party and a public entity. There also, it was observed as follows:-
The expression "whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby" means that where it is possible to prove actual damage or loss, such proof is not dispensed with. It is only in cases where damage or loss is difficult or impossible to prove that the liquidated amount named in the contract, if a genuine pre- estimate of damage or loss, can be awarded.
21. On the other hand, learned Senior Government Pleader placed reliance on the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amber Builders v. State of Gujarat[(2020) 2 SCC 540] wherein, the right of the public authority to determine the liability unilaterally was upheld.
22. Apart from the above, in State of Kerala v. Baby Varghese [2023 (3) KHC 294], this court considered the terms and conditions in the contract entered into by the Public Works Department with the individual contractors and also interpreted clause 2116.2.1 of the PWD Manual, which is invoked in this case. After referring to the same, it was observed in paragraph 8 as follows:-
8. In the light of the above clause, PWD can unilaterally determine the loss and retain any amount due to the contractor under the bill for the dues, though it cannot appropriate the amount due calculated 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 16 towards the loss. The remedy, in such a situation, for a contractor is to challenge the determination in an appropriate manner. The authority of PWD to retain any amount due under the bill cannot be questioned in the light of the contract. However, if the State or the Department wants to recover any amount towards loss in excess of the amount retained, it has to file a suit or counter claim.
23. The issue involved in this writ petition relating to the determination of the compensation payable to the Government by the contractor is to be considered in the light of the aforesaid decisions.
24. The specific case of the learned senior government Pleader for the respondent is that, going by the terms of contract, they have every right to determine loss at a particular rate, irrespective of the actual damage as liquidated damages. They can invoke clause 2116 of PWD Manual and the provisional loss can be decided at the rate of 30% of the remaining work covered by the contract. It is pointed out that, Rs.4,22,001/- demanded in Ext.P13 is under clause 2116.6 whereas, the other is as per the contract read with the terms of contract that enables the respondent to apply the terms and conditions laid down in the Government Order issued in this regard. It is pointed out that, the computation of the liquidated damages is, as contemplated under 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 17 clause 48 of the agreement entered into, between the parties and, also as per the Government orders issued from time to time.
25. However, on going through the observations made by this Court in Baby Varghese's case (Supra), which was rendered after referring to the relevant clauses in the agreement and the PWD Manual, the principle that were laid down was that, even though the Public Works Department would be at liberty to determine the liability unilaterally, and retain any amount due to the contractor under bill or the dues, in order to recover any excess of the amount retained, it has to file a suit or counter claim. Moreover, in Kaikara Construction Company's case, i.e., W.A.No. 695 of 2022 also this Court upheld the entitlement of the Public Works Department to determine the said liability. However, on going through the observations made in Kaikara Construction Company's case, it can be seen that, a Division Bench of this Court interfered with the directions issued in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, relegating the parties to Civil Court. It was observed that, as the adjudication of matter before the Civil Court takes a longer time, which is not beneficial to either of parties and for settlement of disputes regarding damages and demands, the opportunity of hearing, before the assessment of damages, has to be provided.
2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 18
26. From a careful examination of the tone and tenor of the observations made in Kaikara Construction Company and Baby Varghese's case (Supra), it can be seen that, even though this Court upheld the rights of the Public Works Department for unilaterally determining the liability, the same was never treated as a final adjudication process. This is evident from the fact that, in paragraph 8 of the Baby Varghese's case, it was specifically observed by the Division Bench of this Court that, if the State or Department wants to recover any amount towards the loss, in excess to the amounts retained, it has to file a suit or counter claim. It is also observed in the very same paragraph itself that, even though the PWD can unilaterally determine the loss and retain any amount due to the contractor under the bill for the dues, it cannot appropriate the amount due calculated, towards the loss.
27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in J.G. Engineers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, [(2011) 5 SCC 758] , it was observed in para 19 that, the question whether the other party committed breach, cannot be decided by the party alleging breach. A contract cannot provide that, one party will be the arbiter to decide whether he committed breach or the other party committed breach. That question can only be decided by only an adjudicatory forum, that 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 19 is, a court or an Arbitral Tribunal. Thus, an adjudication by a competent authority is envisaged, before any recovery proceedings are being made. Therefore, the adjudication by the respondent cannot be treated as final, that enables the respondents to recover the same, from the contractor.
28. Apart from the above, it is also to be noted that, when the judicial pronouncement, as referred to above, indicates the necessity of adjudication, it also reflects about the duty of the Public Works Department to adjudicate the liability, with reference to the actual loss sustained and under no circumstances, the same cannot be in a predetermined manner, in complete disregard to the actual loss sustained.
29. Of course, the learned Senior Government Pleader vehemently contended that, going by the relevant clauses in the agreement, they are entitled to predetermine the amount, based on a certain percentage of the total amount of the work. In Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Dass, [ AIR 1963 SC 1405] ,the Apex Court observed in para.10 as follows;
"10. Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act deals with the measure of damages in two classes of cases (i) where the contract names a sum to be paid in case of breach and (ii) where the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty. We are in the present case not concerned to decide whether a contract containing a covenant of forfeiture of deposit for due performance of a contract falls within the first class. The 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 20 measure of damages in the case of breach of a stipulation by way of penalty is by Section 74 reasonable compensation not exceeding the penalty stipulated for. In assessing damages the Court has, subject to the limit of the penalty stipulated, jurisdiction to award such compensation as it deems reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Jurisdiction of the Court to award compensation in case of breach of contract is unqualified except as to the maximum stipulated; but compensation has to be reasonable, and that imposes upon the Court duty to award compensation according to settled principles. The section undoubtedly says that the aggrieved party is entitled to receive compensation from the party who has broken the contract, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused by the breach. Thereby it merely dispenses with proof of "actual loss or damage"; it does not justify the award of compensation when in consequence of the breach no legal injury at all has resulted, because compensation for breach of contract can be awarded to make good loss or damage which naturally arose in the usual course of things, or which the parties knew when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach."
In V.K. Ashokan v. CCE, [(2009) 14 SCC 85], it was categorically held that :-
"There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. If damages cannot be calculated and the terms of the contract provide therefore only for penalty by way of liquidated damages, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 74 of the Contract Act, a reasonable sum only could be recovered which need not in all situations even be the sum specified in the contract."
30. From the above legal principles it is clear that, since this is a case of liquidated damages, the basic requirement is that it must be a reasonable estimate of the damages and where the 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 21 estimate of actual damage is available, it must have a relevence, while determining the amount.
31. The unreasonableness in the amount of liability imposed upon the petitioner, is evident from the facts of the case itself. It is to be noted that, it is an admitted position in this case that, the substantial portion of the works are already completed and what remains to be completed, even as per the averments in the counter affidavit of the respondents, is that of Rs.14,89,000/-, whereas, the total liability imposed upon the petitioner is more than Rs.1 crore, inclusive of Rs.96,37,211/-, which is calculated at the rate of 10% of the contract amount. It is to be noted that when 10% of the contract amount is straightaway taken into account, that includes the work the petitioner had already carried out. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reason, in making such an assessment, without any reference to the actual loss sustained to the Government.
32. Apart from the above, Ext.P13 was issued to the petitioner by imposing a huge liability upon them, without issuing any notice in this regard and giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard. This is also yet another reason that necessitates interference in the matter. When such a huge liability is being imposed, certainly the petitioner must have been put on notice 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 22 and opportunity should have been extended to it to submit objections to the assessment. Evidently, in Ext.P13, no such opportunity was extended as well. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Exts.P12 and P13, with a direction to the competent officer among the respondents to reconsider the matter, including the termination of the contract as well the determination of the liability, if any, required. A fresh decision on these matters shall be taken by the officer concerned, after issuing a notice to the petitioner, considering the observations in this judgment and after affording the petitioner an opportunity for being heard. The contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P14 shall specifically adverted to, by the 3rd respondent while passing a fresh order in this regard. The petitioner shall be entitled to submit additional objections, if any, before the 3rd respondent. The order shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
sjb/scs/SM/rpk3101 JUDGE
2026:KER:8062
WP(C) No.23596 of 2025
23
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 23596 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE DATED
10.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE THEN SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD(R& B) CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 17.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4 TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3 RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF LETTER DATED 14.09.2017 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO THE 2 ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2 ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF LETTER NO. DC-
10/29/19 DATED 14.05.2019 ISSUED BY 3 RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2 ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF LETTER DATED 11.06.2019 ISSUED BY 3 RD RESPONDENT TO CHIEF ENGINEER, THE 2 ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF LETTER DATED 22.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3 RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24.12.2021 Exhibit P10 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Exhibit P11 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4 TH RESPONDENT, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, Exhibit P12 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3 RD RESPONDENT DATED 09.01.2023 Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING BEARING NO.DB4/980/2020(1) DATED 19.04.2024 Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE 3 RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TRACK CONSIGNMENT 2026:KER:8062 WP(C) No.23596 of 2025 24 Exhibit P16 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF LETTER DATED 29.05.2025 ISSUED UNDER REGISTERED POST TO THE 3 RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 13.06.2025 Exhibit P18 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2 ND RESPONDENT OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R4(a) True copy of consent letters dated 28-11-2012 given by the respective land owners on the Thathappilly side ExhibitR4(b) True copy of the letters issued by the Assistant Engineer Bridges Section North Paravoor dated 27-01-2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P19 The True photostat copy of the application dated 04.07.2025 submitted by one of the partner of the petitioner firm Exhibit P20 The copy of reply letter dated 01.08.2025 Exhibit P21 The true copy of the auction catalogue summary obtained under the Right to Information Act, from the Public Information Officer Exhibit P22 The true copy of the government order dated 24.08.2015 Exhibit P23 The true copy of the photographs taken in between 12.09pm -12.45pm on 07.08.2025