The duty to consider extension requests influences the validity of contract termination in public works.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a registered A-class contractor and he was entrusted with the work of ‘Construction of Foot Path, Tile Fixing and construction of drain in various junction in Balaramapuram -Vizhinjam road’. Exhibit P1 is the letter by which the tender submitted by the petitioner was accepted. As per the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent, the work ought to have been completed within eight months from 22.03.2018.

2. However, the petitioner could not complete the work within the said period, and hence acting upon the application submitted by the petitioner, the period was extended upto 31.10.2019. Even during the extended period, the Kerala Water Authority was carrying out certain works in the said area with regard to the laying of pipes. Therefore, a further extension of time was sought. A decision with respect to the same, was taken in the meeting conducted in the chamber of the 3^rd respondent on 29.09.2022 and Ext.P3 is the minutes of the said meeting. In Ext.P3 decision, the petitioner has expressed his willingness to commence the work within two weeks and he also made a request to consider the application to extend the time of the contract. One of the decisions taken in Ext.P2 was to direct the Assistant Engineer, Kanjiramkulam to forward the application submitted by the petitioner before the Executive Engineer, seeking extension of time, to the office of the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, Ext.P5 decision was taken by the 3^rd respondent, terminating the contract at the risk and cost of the petitioner. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P5.

3. A counter affidavit was submitted by the 3rd respondent, controverting the averments contained in the writ petition and opposing the reliefs sought. It is specifically averred that, repeated notices were sent to the petitioner requiring him to recommence the work, but he failed to respond to the said notices. Along with the counter affidavit, Ext.R3(c) minutes of the meeting held on 29.03.2023, was also produced, wherein, it is noted that, since the petitioner failed to commence the work, even after repeated notices, a decision was taken to issue a final notice to the petitioner to terminate the contract. Ext.R3(d) is the final notice issued to the petitioner on 11.04.2023, and as per the averments in the counter affidavit, the same was also not responded to, by the petitioner. In such circumstances, Ext.R3(e) communication was issued by the Executive Engineer to the 3^rd respondent, requesting him to initiate appropriate proceedings to terminate the contract of the petitioner and Ext.P5 was issued in such circumstances.

Thus the respondents seek to dismiss the writ petition.

4. I have heard Sri.T.K.Ananthakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.G.Sarojini, the learned Govt. Pleader for the respondents.

5. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, one of the difficulties that came across before the petitioner for commencing the work was that, the application submitted by the petitioner for extending the time limit was not considered and no decision was taken. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought the attention of this Court to Ext.P3 Minutes of the meeting, wherein, there is specific reference to the application submitted by the petitioner seeking extension of time.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the attention of this Court, Ext.P4 communication issued by the petitioner to the 3^rd respondent, just before issuance of Ext.P5 order, wherein, the petitioner specifically highlighted this griev