IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 W.A.No. 1223 of 2008 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.4905/2008 DATED 22/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC: ------------------------------------------------- MATHEWKUNJU MATHEW, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, PADINJAREPARAMBIL, THOTTAKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN (SR) & SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695033. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H.CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.DINESH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1223 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4905 of 2008 dated 22nd February, 2008. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly declined to exercise his discretionary, extra-ordinary and equitable jurisdiction . We say so for the following reasons: 2. The petitioner is a contractor. In the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, he had called in question Ext.P25 order passed by the second respondent terminating the contract that was awarded to the petitioner. 3. An agreement had been executed by the respondents with the petitioner on 27.2.2001 for construction of an intake well for the purpose of a treatment plant. The purpose of awarding the contract has relevance, in our opinion, while disposing of this writ appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge in his order has observed that the appellant before us ought to have completed the work that was W.A.No.1223 of 2008 2 awarded to him on or before 11.8.2002. Since the appellant could not complete the work within the time stipulated in the agreement, the same was extended by executing a supplemental agreement (Ext.P21). The appellant pursuant to the said agreement took over the site once over again on 26.12.2007 and even thereafter there was no progress in the work and it was on that basis Ext.P25 order has been passed by the second respondent. Even before passing Ext.P25 order, there were two termination orders/notices issued by the respondents terminating the contract that was awarded to the appellant. On the request made by the appellant those orders were recalled by the respondents only with the fond hope that the appellant will execute the work and complete the same within the time stipulated in the agreement. In spite of granting sufficient time, since the appellant did not complete the work that was awarded to him, the respondents have passed Ext.P25 order. 5. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has extracted Ext.P25 in extenso only to show that though there was an understanding between the parties that the appellant shall complete the work within a particular time, the appellant has failed to do so. W.A.No.1223 of 2008 3 6. Sri.N.Sukumaran, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, would inform us at the time of hearing of the matter for admission, that the appellant could not complete the work for the reason that there were some obstacles from the authorities who had executed the contract with the appellant. This submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant, in our opinion, is only an after thought. If for any reason, the appellant was prevented by anybody including the person who had awarded the contract, he could have complained the same before appropriate forum. That has not been done by the appellant. In that view of the matter, we cannot countenance the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. 7. The work that was awarded to the contractor/appellant was for the construction of an intake well to be used for the purpose of a treatment plant for water supply to the locals of the Grama Panchayat. The object of granting the contract has a public purpose and the contractor who accepted the work is expected to complete the work well within the time. This had not been done by the contractor. Keeping all these aspects of the matter in view, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge is fully justified in W.A.No.1223 of 2008 4 rejecting the writ petition. 8. In that view of the matter, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns