Kerala High Court
M/S.P And C Projects Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 26 April, 2021
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 6TH VAISAKHA, 1943
WP(C).No.2200 OF 2021(Y)
PETITIONER:
M/S.P AND C PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,
P AND C TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR 140,
PERUNDURAI ROAD, ERODE-638011,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
T.VISWANATHAN.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
SRI.RAMEEZ NOOYH
SMT.MEERA RAMESH
SMT.BHAIRAVI S.N
SMT.FATHIMA K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
216, 3RD FLOOR, NORTH SANDWICH BLOCK,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 KERALA STATE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND
BOARD(KIIFB),
2ND FLOOR, FELICITY SQUARE, MG ROAD,
STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SHRI.K.M.ABRAHAM.
3 M/S.INKEL LIMITED,
DOOR NO.7/473 ZA-5 AND 6, AJIYAL COMPLEX,
POST OFFICE ROAD,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SHRI.A.MOHAN LAL.
WP(C) No.2200/2021
:2 :
R1 BY SRI.P.NARAYANAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004)
R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 26-04-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.2200/2021
:3 :
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 26th day of April, 2021 The petitioner, a registered Private Limited Company which has entered into Ext.P3 Bilateral Agreement and Ext.P6 Supplemental Agreement with the 3 rd respondent, is aggrieved by the termination of those agreements by the 3 rd respondent.
2. The petitioner states that the petitioner-Company entered into Ext.P3 agreement with the 3 rd respondent for construction of the flagship project of "Cochin Cancer Research Centre, Ernakulam". The project is funded by the 2nd respondent-Kerala State Infrastructural Investment Fund Board (KIIFB). The 3rd respondent is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for the Cochin Cancer Center Project, acting on behalf of the 1st respondent-State of Kerala.
3. The petitioner was the successful bidder. The work was awarded for ₹87,14,32,492/- on 13.06.2018. Ext.P3 agreement with the SPV was signed on 06.08.2018. The WP(C) No.2200/2021 :4 : work was to be completed within 730 days. The petitioner started the work on 25.07.2018 and had to complete the work by 23.07.2020. The unprecedented floods in the years 2018 and 2019 and the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020 caused hindrance. These coupled with non-payment of pending bills, labour problems and delay in approval of drawings, made it impossible to complete the work in time.
4. The petitioner has been communicating to the respondents regarding delays occurring at various stages of the work due to unforeseen events as well as for reasons attributable to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner requested for extension of time to complete the work. Thereupon, Ext.P6 Supplemental Agreement was executed on 24.09.2020 extending the completion date upto 28.02.2021, though the petitioner had opposed the time frame.
5. In spite of extension of time, the 3rd respondent did not release pending bills and showed lethargy in approval of designs and drawings. The continuing threat of Covid-19 pandemic added to the hardships. In spite of all these, the WP(C) No.2200/2021 :5 : petitioner proceeded with the work. However, on 26.12.2020, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P8 show-cause notice alleging that the progress of work is slow. The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 reply. The petitioner also issued Ext.P10 letter dated 06.01.2021 to the 3rd respondent raising a dispute and requesting to constitute a Dispute Redressal Committee invoking Clause No.25 of Ext.P4 General Conditions of Contract. Without considering the representation of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P13 on 18.01.2021 terminating Exts.P3 and P6 Agreements. The petitioner challenges Ext.P13 order of termination.
6. The 3rd respondent contested the writ petition. The 3rd respondent stated that the delay caused is not due to non-payment of part bills, labour disputes or delay in providing drawings, etc. The petitioner has been delaying the work from the very beginning. The agreement provided 10 milestones of work. It was a condition that if any milestone is not achieved on the stipulated day, bill amounts will be withheld and paid only after reaching and completing the subsequent milestone WP(C) No.2200/2021 :6 : within the respective time limit.
7. As the petitioner failed to complete the work as agreed in Ext.P3, Ext.P6 Supplemental Agreement was signed extending the period up to 28.02.2021, taking into account Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner cannot rely on floods for failure to complete work, after signing Ext.P6 Supplemental Agreement. The petitioner was paid ₹4.36 Crores as mobilisation advance. The petitioner did not renew bank guarantees executed to secure the mobilisation advance, after 30.11.2020. The petitioner was given secured advance of ₹2,09,42,271/-. The delay or withholding of payments is due to non-completion of milestones. An amount of ₹6,47,049/- was paid to the petitioner towards RAB 06 after adjusting the amount to be recovered from the petitioner. RAB 07 is under process.
8. Due to poor progress of work, Ext.P8 show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. As per Clause III of the General Conditions of Contract, the contract can be terminated if the contractor fails to complete the work or a part WP(C) No.2200/2021 :7 : of the work within the respective dates of completion or before the stipulated or extended dates. The petitioner completed only 35% of their work. The progress of work was poor. The quality of the work was also found wanting. Therefore, after considering the explanation given by the petitioner, the contract was terminated as per Ext.P13. Ext.P13 cannot be set aside on all or any of the grounds urged by the petitioner, contended the 3rd respondent.
9. The 2nd respondent-KIIFB also contested the writ petition. The 2nd respondent pointed out that the Technical Inspection Wing of the 2nd respondent conducted a site inspection and found serious lapses on the part of the petitioner in the progress of the work as well as in the design adopted by the petitioner. A project oriented meeting was convened and in the meeting, the progress of construction work was reviewed. Specific instructions were given to explore the possibility of termination of contract due to continuous non-performance and lethargic attitude of the petitioner in executing the work.
WP(C) No.2200/2021:8 :
10. On 25.11.2019, Porsche slab of the construction collapsed during concreting. The collapse caused major structural damage to the existing structure. Workmen were injured and had to be hospitalised. Preliminary investigation conducted by the Chief Executive Officer of the 2 nd respondent noticed that there were serious lapses on the part of the 3rd respondent and the petitioner. The quality of the work of the petitioner was found very low. The site was maintained by the petitioner in a careless manner.
11. The 2nd respondent stated that the project is an important one for the State of Kerala and if commissioned in time, it will be a solace to large number of cancer patients in the State. The respondents are in the process of entrusting the work to another contractor. If the termination order is cancelled permitting the petitioner to carry out further work, the project will not be completed in the near future, contended the 2nd respondent.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Clause 25 of Ext.P4 Conditions of Contract provides for a WP(C) No.2200/2021 :9 : multilevel dispute resolution mechanism. In the event of a dispute, the same has to be raised by the aggrieved party along with a list of disputes and claims. Though the petitioner raised a dispute as per Ext.P10, the respondents did not refer the same to the Disputes Redressal Committee. Issuance of Ext.P13 termination order when a dispute is raised, is highly arbitrary and offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner had preferred Exts.P11 and P12 representations before the 1st and 2nd respondents. The 1st respondent being the owner of the project and the 2 nd respondent being its funding agency, are duty-bound to consider the petitioner's representations. However, no action was taken on the representations. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner has taken all efforts to complete the work within the time frame. Delay was caused due to floods, Covid-19 pandemic, etc. The respondents have ignored those facts. Respondents 2 and 3 are acting arbitrarily.
WP(C) No.2200/2021: 10 :
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in issuing Ext.P8 show-cause notice under Clause III of the Agreement, the 3rd respondent had relied on twelve documents. However, in Ext.P13 termination order, the 3 rd respondent took into account an inspection report of the 2 nd respondent which was not mentioned in Ext.P8. A copy of the said inspection report was not made available to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Sahi Ram v. Avtar Singh and others [(1999) 4 SCC 511], the Ho'ble Apex Court has held that once the documents relied on by the Government were not put to the party seeking his explanation, the issue is to be remitted back to the Government for reconsideration.
15. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others [(2014) 9 SCC 105], the Apex Court has held that the fundamental purpose behind the serving of a show-cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case against him which he has to meet and a show-cause notice WP(C) No.2200/2021 : 11 : should contain the material grounds which necessitated an action. In the case of the petitioner, the show-cause notice is defective as the inspection report of the 2 nd respondent was not referred to in the said show-cause notice. Therefore, termination based on the said show-cause notice is unsustainable as the notice is defective, contended the learned counsel for the petitioner.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Tantia Construction Private Limited [(2011)5 SCC 697], Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India and others [(2015) 7 SCC 728] and Unitech Limited and others v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and others [2021 SCC OnLine SC 99] to urge that the writ petition is maintainable since overwhelming materials available on record would warrant setting aside of Ext.P13 order.
17. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State WP(C) No.2200/2021 : 12 : of Kerala and others v. M.K. Jose [2015 (9) SCC 433] to contend that writ jurisdiction cannot be extended to cause a roving enquiry in a dispute falling within the realm of contract. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and others [AIR 2020 SC 5215] to argue that a breach of procedure cannot give rise to a remedy in the courts, unless behind it there is something of substance which has been lost by the failure. The Court should not act in vain, contended the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
18. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for the 1 st respondent, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-KIIFB and learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent-SPV.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the scope of interference in contractual matters, under writ jurisdiction. In Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited v. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust and others [(2015) 13 SCC 233], distinguishing between a remedy sought under the Contract WP(C) No.2200/2021 : 13 : Act, by means of damages for specific performance under the specified Act and invoking writ jurisdiction, the Apex Court held that ordinarily, the remedy available for a party complaining of breach of contract lies for seeking damages. He would be entitled to the relief of specific performance, if the contract was capable of being specifically enforced in law. The remedies for a breach of contract being purely in the realm of contract are dealt with by civil courts. The public law remedy, by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not available to seek damages for breach of contract or specific performance of contract. However, where the contractual dispute has a public law element, the power of judicial review under Article 226 may be invoked.
20. In Noble Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa and another [(2006) 10 SCC 236], while answering whether a writ petition was maintainable in contractual matters and if so, what is the scope of jurisdiction of the Court in such matters, the Apex Court held that "It is trite that if an action on the part of the State is violative of the equality clause contained in WP(C) No.2200/2021 : 14 : Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a writ petition would be maintainable even in the contractual field. A distinction indisputably must be made between a matter which is at the threshold of a contract and a breach of contract; whereas in the former the court's scrutiny would be more intrusive, in the latter the court may not ordinarily exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review, unless it is found to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."
21. In the case on hand, the petitioner entered into Ext.P3 Agreement with the 3rd respondent and commenced the work on 25.07.2018. Admittedly, as per the terms of the contract, the work had to be completed within 730 days from the date of handing over of the project site. In view of the said provision, the petitioner had to complete the work by 23.07.2020. True, Kerala State witnessed flood situation in the years 2018 and 2019. The respondents would contend that the floods have not affected the project area and the petitioner cannot take umbrage under the floods for failure to perform his part of the contract. The learned counsel for the WP(C) No.2200/2021 : 15 : petitioner, on the other hand, would argue that the unprecedented floods which inundated most part of the State, created substantial difficulties in mobilising men and material for execution of the work.
22. But, it may be noted that the respondents considered the situation and permitted the petitioner to enter into Ext.P6 Supplemental Agreement on 24.09.2020. By Ext.P6, the period of completion of work under the principle agreement was enhanced from 730 days to 949 days. Under the Supplemental Agreement, the petitioner was bound to complete the project work by 28.02.2021. The petitioner could not complete the work by the said date. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that it was the floods occurred in the years 2018 and 2019 that prevented the petitioner from completing the work as per agreement.
23. The petitioner would contend that part bills raised by the petitioner in respect of completed works were not honoured by the 3rd respondent, which caused difficulties to the petitioner in executing the work with required expediency. WP(C) No.2200/2021 : 16 : The learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent would point out that there were specific conditions in the agreement which provided that if any of the stipulated milestone was not achieved by the prescribed date, the amounts due for that work will be withheld till the petitioner completes the next milestone within the date prescribed for the same. When the petitioner has agreed to such a term of contract, the petitioner will not be justified in blaming the delay in execution of the work on non-payment of part-bills raised.
24. The further case of the petitioner is that principles of natural justice are violated in terminating the contract. The argument is that the Ext.P8 show-cause notice though referred to as many as 12 documents in support of termination, the 3rd respondent relied on, in Ext.P13 termination order, an Inspection Report of the 2 nd respondent about which the petitioner was not put to notice in Ext.P8 show cause notice, nor was the petitioner was provided with a copy of that report.
WP(C) No.2200/2021: 17 :
25. The 3rd respondent has terminated the contract on two counts, namely slow progress of the work and quality of work. The fact of extension of time limit for completion of work and failure to complete the work even in the extended period is admitted by the petitioner, though the petitioner would contend that the delay is due to reasons attributable to the respondents.
26. The inferior quality of work executed by the petitioner is reflected in Ext.R3(d) letter of undertaking signed by the petitioner. Therefore, the failure of the 3 rd respondent to note the inspection report of the 2 nd respondent in Ext.P8 show cause notice by itself cannot be said to have caused substantial prejudice to the petitioner. The degree of compliance of the principles of natural justice applicable to administrative actions of State cannot be made applicable with the same force, to the 3 rd respondent in a contractual matter.
27. The further argument of the petitioner is that there were labour disputes and unwarranted delay on the part of the WP(C) No.2200/2021 : 18 : 3rd respondent in providing drawings which also has contributed to delay in execution of work within the stipulated time. These are disputed questions of fact which this Court cannot adjudicate in writ jurisdiction.
In the result, the writ petition is found to be lacking in merits and is hence dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/16.04.2021 WP(C) No.2200/2021 : 19 : APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER DOCUMENT NO.NIT/INKEL/KIIFB/ 2018-19/010 DATED 05/04/2018 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF COCHIN CANCER RESEARCH CENTRE,ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE NO.INKEL/CE/LOA/HEALTH/ 2018/037 DATED 13/06/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETTITIONER EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.O4/KIIFB/INKEL/2018-19 DATED 06/08/2018 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT BETWEEEN THE PARTIES WITH NIT NO.NIT/INKEL/KIIFB/2018-19/010 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.P&C/KLR/CRC-
SITE/INKEL/2020-21/197 DATED 15.09.2020 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES,ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT NO.SA-35/KIIFB/INKEL/2020-21 DATED 24.09.2020 BETWEEN THE PARTIES EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE TIMES OF INDIA NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED ON 19.12.2020 REPORTING THE DISSATISFACTION EXPRESSED BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT AND WORKING OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT WP(C) No.2200/2021 : 20 : EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSED NOTICE NO.INKEL/MD/CCRC/2020-21/1225 DATED 26/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.P&C/KLR/CCRC-SITE/2020-21/235 DTD.04.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P8 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE NO.P&C/CCRC-
SITE/2020-21/236 DATED 06/01/2021 ISSUED BY PETITIONER SEEKING REFERENCE OF DISPUTE TO DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P&C/KLR/CCRC/CRC/KIIFB/2020-21/239 DATED 08/01/2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P&C/KLR/CCRC/CRC/KIIFB/2020-21/237 DATED 08/01/2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION LETTER NO.INKEL/CCRC/2021/5554 DATED 18/01/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P14 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AS ON TODAY.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO
NIT/INKEI/KIIFB/W0W0-21/118 DTD
22.2.2021 ISUEE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME DATED NIL ALONG WITH RELEVANT PAGES OF THE HINDRANCE REGISTER.
WP(C) No.2200/2021: 21 : EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO P & C/KLR/CRC-SITE/INKEL/2020-21/230 DATED 18.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO TH EMANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. P& C/KLR/CRC-SITE/INKEL/2020-21/240 DATED 15.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3R DRESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. P & C /KLR/CRC-SITE/INKEL/2020-21/220 DATED 25.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPIES OF OME OF THE REQUEST LETTERS MADE BY THE 3RD RESPONDNET IN DIFFERENT DATED 04.02.2021, 19.01.2021,05.12.2020, 17.10.2020 AND 15.10.2020 TO VARIOUS EXTERNAL LAB AGENCIES FOR CONDUCTING THE REQUIRED TESTS.
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPIES OF SOME OF THE LETTERS OF
LETTERS OF ACCEPATANCE DATED
31.01.2019,12.02.2018 AND 27.12.2017 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AS PART OF UNDERTAKING OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORK IN THE STATE OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPIES OF SOME OF THE CERTIFICATES OF THE PETITIONERS WORK COMPLETED AHEAD OF THE TIMESHCEDULE ISSUED BY THE PWD, TAMIL NADU DATED 04.11.2015, 16.07.2014 AND 04.08.2015 EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
INKEL/CCRC/SITE/20/43 DATED 07.11.2020 SNET BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE FILED RECTIFICATION REPORT.
WP(C) No.2200/2021: 22 : RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.G.O.(Rt)No.6/2017/H&FWD DATED 04.01.2017 EXHIBIT R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.APR-37139/2017/KIIFB DATED 08.03.2018 EXHIBIT R2(c) A TRUE COPY OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT ORDER BEARING NO.02/INK/CCRC/APRIL/2018 DATED 04.04.2018 EXHIBIT R2(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES VIDE G.O (M.S)NO.69/2018/FIN DATED 24.02.2018 EXHIBIT R2(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.INKEL/CE/LOA/HEALTH/2018/037 DATED 13.06.2018 EXHIBIT R2(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR WORK DATED 06.08.2018 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS AN SPV IN FAVOUR THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R2(g) A TRUE COPY OF THE OBSERVATIONS A MEMO WAS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT POINTING OUT THE LAPSES IN THE WORK VIDE LETTER NO.HFW00L-03-TIW-INSP-01 DATED 23.02.2019 EXHIBIT R2(h) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.IA2/1696/2018/KIIFB DATED 07/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST AND 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2(i) A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE COLLAPSED PORTION.
EXHIBIT R2(j) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE TECHNICAL TEAM OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 27.11.2019.
EXHIBIT R2(k) A TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION NOTICE
DATED 27.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2(l) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING
NO.HFWOOL-03-TIW-INSP-01 DATED
19.12.2019
WP(C) No.2200/2021
: 23 :
EXHIBIT R2(m) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 27.07.2020 SEND BY THE DIRECTOR CCRC TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R2(n) A TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TECHNICAL TEAM OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT PURUANT TO THE INSPECTION DONE ON 06.11.2020.
EXHIBIT R2(o) A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 26.12.2020 BEARING
NO.INKEL/MD/CCRC/2020-21/1225
EXHIBIT R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE 'F' SCHEDULE IN THE
ESTIMATED COST OF WORKS OF THE
CONSTRUCTION OF COCHIN CANCER RESEARCH CENTRE.
EXHIBIT R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE RA BILL 6 DATED 28/10/2020 AND THE DETAILS REGARDING THE RECOVERY OF MOBILIZATION ADVANCES AND THE RECEIPT FOR MEMORANDUM OF PAYMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28/10/2020.
EXHIBIT R3(c): TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT DETAILS TO THE PETITIONER UPTO DATE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF COCHIN CANCER RESEARCH CENTRE.
EXHIBIT R3(d): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF UNDERTAKING
DATED 10/03/2020 GIVEN BY THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R3(e): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
25/11/2019 SUBMITTED BY GREEN LAB
INDUSTRIAL & ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS (PVT.). LTD., THRIKKAKARA.
EXHIBIT R3(f): TRUE COPY OF THE TEST REPORT OF THE
SEMI DESTRUCTIVE CORE TEST ON RC
COLUMNS CONDUCTED BY BUREAU VERITAS,
AN NABL ACCREDITED LAB.
WP(C) No.2200/2021
: 24 :
EXHIBIT R3(g): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
25/06/2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE TEST LISTS.
EXHIBIT R3(h): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
29/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R3(i): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
06/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R3(j): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
06/03/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R3(k): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
08/04/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R3(l): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
03/05/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R3(m): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
20/06/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R3(n): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
02/07/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R3(o): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
22/07/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R3(p): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
05/08/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R3(q): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
22/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
WP(C) No.2200/2021
: 25 :
EXHIBIT R3(r): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
23/07/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R3(s): TRUE COPY OF THE HINDRANCE REGISTER
KEPT AT THE SITE BY THE M/S. INKEL
LIMITED
EXHIBIT R3(t): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
27.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT R3(u): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
10.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R3(v): TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF EQUIPMENTS
FOR TESTING OF MATERIALS AND
CONCRETES AT SITE LABORATORY PREPARED THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R3(w): TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF PAYMENT
OF RA BILL 02 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT R3(x): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND ADDITIONAL
CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT WHICH STATES ABOUT THE ESTABLISHEMENT OF A SITE LABORATORY EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R3(x)(1): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT WHICH STATES ABOUT THE TESTING EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R3(Y): TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF ONE OF THE REVIEW MEETING DATED 1.4.2019 HELD BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R3(Z): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.11.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
SR