IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WA.No. 1839 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.28814/2010 Dated 17/09/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ SHYAMALA SATHYAPALAN, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.LATE K.N.SATHYAPALAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EZHUKONE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 013. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, PROJECT II, PUBLIC BUILDING, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MUSEUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, PROJECT CIRLCE, PIRAVOM-686 664. MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1839 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard senior counsel Sri. K. Ramakumar appearing for the appellant and Government Pleader for the respondents. Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge who upheld the cancellation of contract awarded to the appellant. 2. After hearing both sides and after going through the judgment of the learned single Judge we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge because construction contract was initially awarded to the appellant's late husband on 16.6.2000. Though period for completion of work was 18 months, the appellant's husband died within a year of the award of the contract. After the death of appellant's husband, appellant requested the respondents to award contract to her and they obliged. Even though contract was executed by respondents with the appellant for completion of work, the appellant did not complete the work or substantial portion thereof. It is W.A.No.1839/2010 2 seen from the judgment that after perusing the records and the impugned order, the learned single Judge found that extension of time was granted liberally to the appellant on several occasions and the work which ought to have been completed some time in 2002 was not completed or substantially completed upto 2008 even though time was granted by the respondents to the appellant until then. It is only on being satisfied that the appellant was only dragging the matter without any earnest effort for completing the work, respondents cancelled the contract vide Ext.P34 dated 12.8.2010. The objection raised by the appellant, and highlighted by senior counsel appearing for the appellant, is that delay in execution of the work is attributable to the respondents. Allegations raised are that respondents did not shift 11 KV line, municipality did not allow cutting of the road, respondents did not supply materials in time, etc. It is obvious that appellant's husband also did not execute sizable portion of the work even though his death was after expiry of more than half of the contract period. Appellant is no better than her late husband is proved by her in not doing the work and the finding of the learned single Judge based on records is that as W.A.No.1839/2010 3 on the date of cancellation of the contract, materials with substantial value supplied by the respondents are with the appellant. We do not find any bona fides on the appellant and therefore there is no justification for this Court to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. We completely endorse the finding of the learned single Judge and consequently dismiss the appeal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (BHABANI PRASAD RAY) Judge. kk