IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 26774 of 2003(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- V.GOPALAKRISHNAN, CONTRACTOR, KARMALA BHAVAN, THAZHAM SOUTH, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (NORTHERN REGION) KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H.CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THANA, KANNUR 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, MATTANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH, SC, KWA SRI.BABU VARGHESE SRI.C.RASHEED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 26774/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 29/10/97 FILED BY THE PTR,BEFORE THE R3. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 19/05/98 OF THE R4 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PHC/KNR/D1/5787/92(2) DT. 5/6/98 OF THE EE INCHARGE OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 31/07/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R1. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 13/09/2001 IN OP NO. 26993/2001. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 1/11/2002 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R1. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 17/11/2002 OF THE R1 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 26/11/2002 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE R1. EXT.P9. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 21/10/2001 OF THE R4 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 11/08/2002 OF THE R1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.26774 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Class A contractor. He was given the contract of construction of over-head tank and pump house at treatment plant site. According to the petitioner, on account of lapses on the part of the officers of the water authority in not supplying the departmental materials, approved design etc., the work was delayed. The main complaint of the petitioner would appear to be that the fourth respondent Executive Engineer recommended the termination of the contract to the Superintending Engineer for cancelling the contract at the risk and cost of the petitioner. The work was terminated vide Ext.P3 order. Petitioner challenges the same before the Chief Engineer, and he approached this court. This court by Ext.P5 directed to consider Ext.P4 representation and pass orders on merits after hearing the petitioner. Exts.P9 and P10 are challenged before this court. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to prohibit them from fixing and recovering any amount as liability from the petitioner without the first respondent passing orders on Ext.P4 as directed in Ext.P5 judgment. He seeks a further declaration and also seeks direction against recovery pursuant to Exts.P9 and P10. WPC. 26774/2003. 2 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent. Counter affidavit is filed in the matter denying the allegations of the petitioner. According to the respondents, the breach is committed by the petitioner and despite opportunity being granted, he could not complete the work in accordance with the contract, and that necessitated the termination of the contract at his risk and cost. 3. According to the petitioner though this court directed consideration of Ext.P4 representation and the question to be considered was whether the petitioner could be treated as being liable, this question was not decided by the first respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the water authority points out Ext.P7, which inter alia reads as follows: “Please recall the discussions and decisions of the meeting dated 13.11.2001 held at my chamber in compliance of the directions of the Honourable High Court to examine Ext.P6 in detail and allowing you the opportunity to present your views on the subject - vide the minutes of the meeting forwarded to you as per this letter of even No. dated 20.11.2001. As agreed during the meeting, even though all the officers who had supervised, measured and check measured the subject work were present on 28.11.2001 at the work site at Chavasseryparamba for the verification of all measurements WPC. 26774/2003. 3 taken on the works in your presence, the attempt failed due to your absence.” I would think that this is a case where the petitioner has to work out his remedies in the matter before the competent civil court. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of reserving freedom for the petitioner to approach the competent civil court in the matter. The interim order passed by this court will continue for a period of three weeks from today. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb