Contractual obligations dictate that the petitioner must adhere to timelines, and failure to obtain necessary approvals does not exempt him from liability or justify his claims for completed works.

JUDGMENT : 

Harisankar V. Menon, J.

These writ petitions are filed by a contractor seeking to challenge the steps taken against him for the alleged delay in taking up and executing a work, as well as seeking a direction to disburse payments for certain works admittedly completed by him, not honoured on account of the liability created against him on account of the work not taken up by him as above.

2. The petitioner participated in a tender with respect to the work of “bitumen concrete overlaying” of Kodakara - Kodungallur road from KM 12/540 to 23/700 in Kodungallur LAC. He is stated to have been the successful bidder. An agreement was also executed for Rs.4,45,00,882.40, the petitioner having deposited an amount of Rs.13,35,100/- towards security. The site was handed over to him on 06.09.2021. The work ought to have been completed within nine months by 05.06.2022. As per Ext.P3 PWD Manual, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to have “set out the work” on the ground as per the approved plan. The setting out of the work is also to be “checked and approved” by the Departmental Officers. Similarly, the petitioner states that under clause 202.8(1)(xiv), it is the duty of the Assistant Executive Engineer to ensure before the start of the work, initial levels and details of material collection reports are furnished to the Chief Technical Examiner’s office. The petitioner contends that the setting out of the work under clause 2102.3 of the PWD Manual was completed through the intervention of the Lan Deck Surveyors as reported to the Assistant Engineer, Mala, by email dated 17.02.2022, produced as Ext.P41. The petitioner states that the afore layout measurements were prepared under the supervision of PWD Officials, Mala. He also relies on Ext.P42 invoice issued by the afore agency dated 17.02.2022 in support of the contention that the setting out of the work was completed by that date. He further points to Ext.P10 communication from the 2nd respondent dated 09.06.2022 to state that, even as on that date, the initial level proposal for the work had not been approved. The petitioner relies on Ext.P11 RTI information dated 07.02.2023 to state that the “level report” for the work was reported only on 08.04.2022. The petitioner further relies on Ext.P14 communication from the 2^nd respondent to state that it is only on 23.06.2022 that the initial level proposal was approved by the said authority. However, since by that time, the period for the work was already over, the petitioner wanted himself to be relieved from the work and had therefore sent Ext.P5 letter dated 03.02.2022. In reply, the petitioner is served with Ext.P6 letter from the 2^nd respondent informing that it has been concluded in the meeting of the Department that there is an inordinate delay in the work and therefore, appropriate steps under the PWD Manual would be taken against him. The petitioner, therefore, sent Ext.P7 letter dated 29.03.2022 again repeating that he may be relieved of the work. In Ext.P8, dated 06.04.2022, as per which the date of reporting is shown as 06.04.2022, the proposed date of commencement is shown as 18.04.2022, and the anticipated date of completion is shown as 30.04.2022. In the meantime, by Ext.P17 order dated 21.06.2022, the 2^nd respondent found that the petitioner was at fault and therefore decided to remove the petitioner from the work and entrust the same to other contractors. In the meantime, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.13370 of 2022, which was disposed of by Ext.P18 judgment, noticing that there was failure on both sides which could not be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India an