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. 247 of 2010(E) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- A.KISHORE, 'ANJALI', VETTIKAVALA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION), IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ADDITIONAL IRRIGATION DIVISION, THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH 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.247 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a contractor by profession. The petitioner had executed an agreement vide No.12/SE ICC/2008-09 on 27/6/2008 with the third respondent, namely the reformation of damaged seawall in between C.P.3957 and 3959 in Kodungallur Taluk. It is stated by the petitioner that the said work is connected with Tsunami rehabilitation programme. It was entrusted to the petitioner in terms of the programme involved by the respondent. 2. It is stated that the initial period of completion of work was extended upto February, 2010. Because of various circumstances petitioner could not start the work. Finally Ext.P7 notice was issued by the 3rd respondent wherein the petitioner was informed that, if the work is not completed before the stipulated time, i.e. 4/1/2010, the 3rd respondent is bound to terminate the work. He was also directed to start the work with good progress within 15 days on receipt of the letter. In answer to Ext.P7 notice, petitioner submitted Ext.P8 pointing out various explanations for not starting the work and not W.P.(C)No.247 of 2009 2 completing the work within the stipulated time. He further prays for a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P8 and take appropriate decision. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to take a decision in Ext.P8 after considering the facts pointed out by the petitioner, before proceeding further. The same will be done as expeditiously as possible. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj