IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37831 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- REMLATH BEEVI M., W/O.MUHAMMED SHAH, AGED 60 YEARS, ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR, JUMRAT-AL-USTA, ALISSERY, ALAPPUZHA-1. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEAR RAMANILAYAM, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR. 3. CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEAR CHANDANAKAVU TEMPLE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, FIRE STATION ROAD, MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN FOR R2,3,4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.37831 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is the licensed contractor and it is averred in the writ petition that she undertakes various works under PWD, Irrigation, etc. Pursuant to tender notification by the third respondent, petitioner submitted sealed tenders for executing four works mainly for providing infrastructural development works, in Pokkali land--RIDFX projects in Ernakulam and Alappuzha districts which were accepted and different agreements were executed by the petitioner. Going by the agreements outer time limit fixed for completion of the work was for 2 years. It is the case of the petitioner that due to various reasons he could not proceed with and complete the work so far. Petitioner points out various reasons for the delay occurred in the matter. 2. Petitioner also refers to a letter sent by second respondent which is produced as Ext.P5 to justify the contention that she could not complete the work due to various reasons. Petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 representation before the W.P.(C)No.37831 of 2009 2 Government seeking for the benefit of Ext.P6 circular and also to exonerate her from executing the balance works or to allow her to complete the work by providing rate enhancement. 3. Heard the standing counsel for the third respondent and the learned Government Pleader. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent that the period for the execution of the contract was extended up to 30/1/2010. Therefore, it is up to, the Government to take a decision and there will be a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P5 after hearing the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj