The court emphasizes the necessity of considering exceptional circumstances impacting contractual obligations and mandates competent authority decisions on extension requests.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a contractor, who was entrusted with the task of collecting toll from the vehicles and boats, entering in the Beypore Harbour, Kozhikode, for the period of one year from 04.03.2024 to 03.03.2025. Ext.P1 is the tender, based on which, the work was entrusted to the petitioner. The total amount quoted by the petitioner was Rs.50,00,051/-. Ext.P2(a) is the agreement dated 07.03.2024, executed between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent in this regard.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, after executing the said agreement, there was severe resistance from the part of vehicle owners and boat owners, against the collection of toll and therefore the petitioner could not collect the toll for a considerable period of time. According to the petitioner, about 8 months, the petitioner could not collect the toll. It is also the case of the petitioner that, even though several communications were issued in this regard, to the authorities concerned, including the respondents and police, there was no effective resolution of the problems highlighted by the petitioner. This prompted the petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P (C) No.26280/2024 seeking police protection.

3. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition as per Ext.P5, recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the police will keep vigil in the area and ensure payment of toll by persons and vehicles entering Beypore Harbour. Thereafter, despite the said direction, the effective police protection could be ensured and the toll collection could be resumed, only after the initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the police.

4. In such circumstances, as the petitioner could not collect the toll, for a substantial period, the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 seeking extension of time, and also to grant certain exemptions from making payment of instalments towards the charges. Thereafter, this Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

i. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P9.

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents two to Jour to consider the request made by the petitioner in Exts.P7, P7(a), P8 and P10 and to allow the same by extending the period for collection of the toll by the petitioner in Beypore Harbour, Kozhikode till

4" November 2025.

5. When the matter came up for consideration, this Court passed an interim order dated 11.03.2025 directing the 2^nd respondent to dispose of Exts.P7 and P10 representations submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, a hearing was conducted by the 2^nd respondent and Ext.R2(b) Order was passed rejecting the contentions of the petitioner. It was also found in Ext.R2(b) that the 2^nd respondent is not competent to take a decision on the extension.

6. A detailed counter affidavit is submitted by the 2nd respondent opposing the reliefs sought in this writ petition and the contentions raised. The main ground raised against the petitioner is by placing reliance upon clause (9) of the agreement.

7. Heard Sri.N.M.Madhu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.G.Sarojini, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents.

8. When the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was prevented from collecting the toll for a considerable period during his tenure, the learned Government Pleader submits that, despite the fact that the contractual obligation, as evidenced by Ext.P1 included cleaning