Writ petitions for purely contractual disputes typically lack maintainability under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is a registered B Class Contractor with the 1^st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board to consider Ext.P8 representation dated 12.03.2024 and release the payment of the work already executed by the petitioner as per Tender No.SDP/EE/ET-126/2018-19 in Ext.P1, along with 12% interest, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner was the lowest tenderer for the work of repairs and replacement of damaged electrical installations of various buildings at Pamba and Nilakkal - supply of electrical materials during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season of 1194ME. The said work also involved engaging labourer for watching and maintenance of temporary lights and attending electrical faults round the clock, as per the direction of the Departmental officials from 15.11.2018 to 19.01.2019. In the writ petition it is stated that, considering the necessity to complete the work before the commencement of Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season, the 4^th respondent Executive Engineer, Sabarimala Development Project, directed the petitioner to commence the work without waiting for the administrative sanction and contract sanction from the 3^rd respondent Chief Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board. The petitioner completed the work within the stipulated time, under the supervision of the 5^th respondent Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical). Though the 5^th respondent prepared Ext.P4 bill for an amount of Rs.10,50,071/- and forwarded the same to the office of the 4^th respondent Executive Engineer, the amount has not been released till date. After repeated enquiries, by Ext.P6 letter dated 17.03.2023 of the 3^rd respondent Chief Engineer, addressed to the 2^nd respondent Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board, the petitioner learnt that the files relating to the work done by him is misplaced, which could not be traced out. Feeling aggrieved by the delay in releasing the payment, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 12.03.2024 before the 2^nd respondent Secretary of Travancore Devaswom Board. The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 request dated 04.03.2024 before the State Public Information Officer in the Office of the Board, to which he received Ext.P9(a) reply dated 08.04.2024.

3. On 03.06.2024, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board pointed out the law laid down by this Court in SITCO Associates v. State of Kerala [ 2023 (6) KHC SN 5 : 2023:KER: 10029 ], which was reiterated in High Range Marketing Society Ltd. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2023:KER:49419]

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board on the question of maintainability of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India .

5. During the course of arguments, on a query made by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for the contract work alleged to have been undertaken by the petitioner during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season there is no administrative sanction by the 1^st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board or contract sanction from the 3^rd respondent Chief Engineer. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would point out that the person who was holding the post of Chief Engineer, at the time of the alleged execution of the contract work by the petitioner, retired from service.

6. InState of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC 216] the Apex Court reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the proper procedure for adjudicating disputes relating to the enfo