IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35129 of 2008(F) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S. CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, THEKKIL.P.O, KASARAGODE. REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.T.B. KUNHIMAHIN HAJI. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.ABDUL REHIM SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENTING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).35129/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was awarded the following two contract works:- (i). ASE-Constructing sea wall for a length of 1680 m in between Azhikode and Eriyad between the KERI CP Stone 4004 and 4012 – Reach 1 for a length of 960m - Reach 1A from Ch. O to 480 m. (ii). ASE-Constructing sea wall for a length of 1680m in between Azhikode and Eriyad between the KERI CP Stone 4004 and 4012 – Reach 1 for a length of 960 m - Reach 1B for a length of 480m from Ch. 480m to 960m. 2. According to the petitioner, there was delay in handing over of the site which was done only on 5.9.2005. Due to absence of road facility and heavy monsoon, the work could be started only in December, 2005. This, according to the petitioner, prevented W.P.(C).35129/2008 2 adequate progress in the work. Time stipulated in the agreement expired on 4.9.2006 and the petitioner submitted an application for extension of the same. Time was extended as per Exts.P3 and P3(a) and supplemental agreements were executed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, substantial portion of both the works have been completed. But then again, the completed sea wall was damaged and therefore, a further extension of the agreement period was requested by the petitioner as evidence by Exts.P4 and P4(a) and this was also granted as per Exts.P5 and P5(a). Amounts are due to the petitioner under the agreement. 3. It is common case that the work has not been completed within the extended period of 31.3.2008. Petitioner has sought for further extension of period by Exts.P6 and P6(a). In the meanwhile, steps are taken for terminating the petitioner’s works, as per Exts.P10 and P10(a). Petitioner has a firm case that such termination has come about only as an offshoot of the petitioner approaching this Court in relation to another work, wherein it alleged that the documents were not W.P.(C).35129/2008 3 supplied to it on the ground that the petitioner is not otherwise qualified. Such bid documents have thereafter, been supplied to the petitioner pursuant to Exts.P7 and P8 orders as affirmed by a Bench of this Court in Ext.P9 judgment. Exts.P10 and P10(a) orders of termination are under challenge in the writ petition. Petitioner has also moved the Government vide Exts.P13 and P13(a) for review of the same and for permission to complete the work, if necessary after executing supplemental agreements, subject to the petitioner undertaking that it shall not claim a revision of rates for such works. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. I have perused the averments in the writ petition as also those contained in Exts.P13 and P13(a) representations. I take note of the submission made by the petitioner that a minor portion of the work done remains to be completed and the petitioner undertakes to complete the work within the stipulated period on executing supplemental agreements, without raising a claim for revision of rates. W.P.(C).35129/2008 4 This is a matter that has to be looked into by the competent authority while taking a decision on Exts.P13 and P13(a). 5. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider Exts.P13 and P13(a) with specific reference to the petitioner's undertaking that it shall complete the balance amount of work within the next extended period without claiming any revision of rates. Decision shall be taken in this regard at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Copy of the writ petition along with the copy of the judgment shall be produced by the petitioner before the second respondent. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs