The court highlights that factual disputes, particularly in contract execution and technical matters, should not be resolved in writ proceedings but through appropriate forums, underscoring the need for evidence-based resolution.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a contractor, who was entrusted with the work of the Rebuild Kerala Initiative – Resilient Reconstruction of LSGI Road Infrastructure – Kanjikkal Mukku Ganam Theater Road in Bharanikavu Grama Panchayat, Alappuzha District. Ext.P1 is the work order dated 04.05.2021, and Ext.P2 is the agreement executed between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, dated 04.05.2021. The petitioner had completed the work, and Ext.P3 is the certificate of completion of work, which states that the works as per the agreement and the supplemental agreements had been completed in all respects, on 14.09.2023. According to the petitioner, as per Exts.P1 and P2, the responsibility to implement the project was upon the Executive Engineer, the 4th respondent in this writ petition. Ext.P4 is the certification of the measurement taken in respect of the work the petitioner had carried out, by the 4th respondent, and as per the same, the amount for the work was determined to be Rs.49,33,807/-, and the final settlement amount was fixed as Rs.46,73,408/- after the deductions.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the said amount ought to have been released to him, along with the GST payable in respect of the said work, which, according to the petitioner, would come to Rs.58,21,892/-. Ext.P5 is the communication issued by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent, while submitting the fifth and final bill, wherein, it is mentioned that the total value of the work done is Rs.1,66,87,749/- and the last amount to be payable is Rs.49,33,807/-. However, when the bill was prepared, the total amount receivable by the petitioner was fixed as Rs.44,96,776/- including GST by the 3rd respondent. Thus, according to the petitioner, certain unwarranted deductions were made in respect of the work carried out by the petitioner, despite the fact that, all the works were properly measured and included in the M book as evidenced by Ext.P4.

3. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted a representation highlighting these aspects before the 3rd respondent. However, as per Ext.P8 communication, the objections raised by the petitioner were rejected by stating that, in the works carried out by the petitioner, he had carried out excess works in Wet Mix Macadam (WMM), and as per the MoRTH Specification for Road and Bridge Works (Fifth Revision 2013) Clause 11.33, the amounts can be disbursed only as per the design thickness based on DPR. Thus, the contentions of the petitioner were rejected. That was challenged by filing W.P.(C).No.6071/2024. This Court, after considering all relevant aspects, as per Ext.P10 judgment , directed the 3rd respondent to hear the petitioner and take a final decision on his claim adverting to the “M Book,” as also any other germane and relevant inputs, dehors Ext.P8.

4. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered by the 3rd respondent, and Ext.P11 order was passed. However, in Ext.P11, the claim of the petitioner in respect of the entire amount covered as per the measurements recorded in Exts.P3 and P4 was declined, attributing carelessness and mismanagement on the part of the petitioner in the execution of the work, as according to the 3rd respondent, due to the same, the additional quantities were to be utilized for completing the work. Thus, this writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances.

5. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the 3rd respondent, denying the contentions raised by the petitioner and opposing reliefs.

6. I have heard Smt.C.M. Charisma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.K.G. Sarojini, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

7.