Recovery cannot be unilaterally initiated post-payment for works completed under contract; compliance with procedures outlined in contract agreements is essential.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an ‘A Class’ contractor and claims to have an experience of 30 years in completing the several projects. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner being aggrieved by the recovery proceedings for an amount of Rs.34,57,128/-. Out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.18,98,376/- is recovered as per Ext.P6, from the bills payable to the petitioner in respect of another work. The writ petition is submitted in such circumstances seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to settle the final bill of the petitioner in relation to work as per Exhibit P2, namely, “PMGSY 2013-14 (Phase VIII – Batch 1) Package No. KR 07-25 Construction of Choovor – Elathunkapara Road” based on actual work executed and recorded in the Measurement Book in relation to the work and to pay the amount immediately.

ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ or direction calling for entire records leading upto Exhibit P1 and P6 and may set aside the recoveries proposed and made therein after declaring the same as arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal.

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to refund the amount of Rs. 18,98,376/- to the petitioner deducted as per Exhibit P1 and P6 immediately with interest at 12% per annum.

iv) It is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

v) Issue such other writs or directions which this Hon`ble Court may find deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and,

vi) Award the costs of the proceedings to the petitioner from the respondents.”

2. The circumstances that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner was assigned with work namely, “PMGSY II-2026-17 Batch -1 Package No.KR 07-47-Chonnamala-Chellikal-Illikakal Bottom Road- Erattupetta Block-Kottayam District.” After completion of the said work, when the final bill was approved, a deduction of Rs.18,98,376/- was made by the respondents and the remaining amount alone was paid. On enquiry, it was informed that the deduction was made, in relation to the amounts allegedly paid to the petitioner in excess, in respect of another work, namely, “PMGSY 2013-14 (Phase VIII-Batch 1) Package No.KR 07-25 Construction of Choovor-Elathunkapara Road”. Ext.P1 is the final bill in respect of the aforesaid work, based on which the recovery was sought.

2.2. The case of the petitioner is that, the work referred to in Ext.P1 was carried out based on Ext.P2 agreement dated 28.11.2014. The probable amount of contract was Rupees Two Crores Ninety Nine Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Two only. According to the petitioner, during continuance of the said work, it was noticed that, the quantity of certain works to be done has to be increased, particularly on account of the peculiarity of the terrain in which the work was to be executed. Accordingly, a revised estimate was prepared and approved by the contracting agency, the Chief Engineer, and the PAC was enhanced to Rupees Three Crores Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand One Hundred and Eighty-One only. Consequent to the works contemplated under the revised estimate, the petitioner had performed the additional work without any change in the rate as agreed in the original contract. Ext.P4 is the revised estimate based on which the additional works were envisaged. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had carried out the work, as instructed by the officers concerned, who were given such instructions based on the revised estimate