JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of January, 2022 The petitioner, aggrieved by the improper and illegal steps taken by the respondents in connection with the tender for construction of School building in Mannarkkad, has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the respondents to refund/pay to the petitioner the deposit and expenses met by him in connection with the agreement No.92/CL- 23/CMPMU/KILA-KIIFB/2020-21 dated 26.02.2021 with interest to the petitioner, within a time limit fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner states that he entered into an agreement with the respondents for construction of the School building of GUPS, Mannarkkad in Mannarkkad Municipality in Palakkad District. The agreement was executed on

26.02.2021. As per the agreement, the work had to be completed within six months from the date of handing over the site to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the work site was not handed over to the petitioner. After about two months of execution of the agreement, the petitioner sent a notice dated 19.04.2021, requiring to handover the site. The request was not positively responded to. The petitioner again submitted another representation on 05.07.2021. The representation dated 05.07.2021 also did not yield any result.

3. The petitioner submits that thereafter on

04.08.2021, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation requiring the respondents to relieve him from the contractual liability and to repay the amount deposited by the petitioner in connection with the contract. The respondents thereafter issued a letter to the petitioner to carry out the work. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the period of contract, the petitioner cannot be forced to complete the work. The respondents did not handover the site to the petitioner for completion of the work. In the circumstances, the respondents are compellable to relieve the petitioner from the contractual obligations and also to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner.

4. The 1st respondent contested the writ petition filing a Statement. The 1st respondent stated that he addressed the Director of KILA on 28.10.2021 stating the lapses on the part of the petitioner in carrying out the works he undertook. The petitioner did not respond to the notice dated 08.09.2021 to handover the work site. The petitioner failed to commence the work which was undertaken by him. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The respondents further submitted that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner are not liable to be granted in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the 1st respondent.

6. It is not disputed that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the 1st respondent on 26.02.2021. The period allocated for completion of the work was six months from the date of handing over of the site. It is further not disputed that the work site was not handed over to the petitioner within the period of six months.

7. The petitioner has submitted notices to the respondents seeking handing over of the site in the month of April and July, 2021. The site was not handed over. Subsequently, after expiry of about six months, the petitioner sent Ext.P7 representation requiring to relieve him from the contractual liabilities. It is at this stage that the 1st respondent and its officers required the petitioner to resume the work. This Court finds that the respondents handed over the work site for carrying out the work, after the period stipulated for completion of work under the contract. The respondents cannot compel the petitioner to start and complete the work so belatedly. The action of the respondents in requiring the petitioner to start the work after about seven months of execution of the agreement when the stipu