Writ jurisdiction is not applicable for enforcing contractual obligations when the matter involves disputed facts; parties should resort to civil courts.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Exts.P13 and P14 orders issued by the officers of the Travancore Devaswom Board, whereby the work contract issued to the petitioner was cancelled.

2. The petitioner is a registered B class PWD Contractor. It is stated that he has been doing various civil and electrical works for the 1^st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board.

3. According to the writ petitioner, the Travancore Devaswom Board invited bids from qualified electrical contractors for carrying out certain urgent repairs and replacement of the existing old and damaged electrical installations in the Sasthamkotta Sree Dharma Shastha Devaswom Temple, on 23.03.2024. From among the bidders, the petitioner was selected, and the work was allotted to him as per Ext. P1 notice dated 16.07.2024. The contract was awarded at a Probable Amount of Contract (PAC) of ₹1,48,346/-, and the petitioner was directed to attend the office of the 4th respondent within two weeks for the execution of the draft schedule, depositing the requisite amount, and for obtaining necessary instructions.

4. In Ext.P1, there was a stipulation that the petitioner must complete the entire work within 30 days of the actual date of handing over of the site. The petitioner asserts that he approached the office of the 5^th respondent, Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) and made the requisite deposit on 12.08.2024, as evident from Ext.P2, copy of the Term Deposit Receipt of the Dhanlaxmi Bank. Subsequently, the petitioner and the 4^th respondent entered into Ext.P3 agreement dated 13.08.2024 as per Ext.P1 selection notice.

5. It is averred in the writ petition that the site was not handed over to the petitioner, and therefore, he was unable to commence the work. On 23.08.2024, the petitioner received Ext.P5 communication from the 5th respondent, requesting him to approach the 5th respondent to complete the remaining procedures for commencing operations as per Ext. P1 selection notice. The writ petitioner sent Ext. P6 reply to the 5th respondent, pointing out that despite several visits to the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), the site was not handed over to him.

6. Even though the petitioner approached the office of the 5th respondent on several occasions, he was not permitted to complete any of the pending procedures. The petitioner further states that he received Ext. P8 communication dated 22.11.2024 from the 5th respondent, serving as an ultimatum requiring him to commence the work within five days, failing which, consequential actions would follow. Thereafter, the petitioner contacted the 5th respondent and requested completion of all formalities and handover of the site. Finally, on 06.01.2025, the office of the 5th respondent issued Ext. P12, the site handover memo.

7. The petitioner would further contend that, as per Ext.P13 communication, Ext,P12 site handover memo was cancelled, stating that the original site handover memo was communicated to the petitioner vide Ext.P8 communication. On 02.12.2024, the 4^th respondent, Executive Engineer, issued Ext.P14 work cancellation order.

8. The 1st respondent, Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed a detailed affidavit contending that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The subject matter of the Writ Petition concerns a dispute regarding the contractual obligations between the parties and involves disputed questions of fact. Therefore, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not lie to enforce a civil liability, arising purely out of the contract. Reliance was also placed inSITCO Associates v. State of Kerala a