The court emphasized that public authority's arbitrary termination of a contract without following due procedures violates principles of fairness and justness, meriting judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an A Class contractor under the Public Works Department. The dispute involved in this writ petition pertains to the order of termination of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent, at the risk and cost of the petitioner, before the expiry of the contract.

2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows; As per Ext.P1 agreement, the petitioner entered into a contract with the 2^nd respondent, based on the tender notification published by the said respondent, for carrying out the work of improvement to Thamarachal - Malayidamthuruthu Road by providing BM and BC from chainage 2/950 to 5/000 - General Civil Work. Ext.P1 was executed on 26.10.2022 and consequently, the site was handed over to petitioner on 05.11.2022. As per the terms of contract, the petitioner was supposed to complete the work within nine months i.e., on or before, 04.08.2023. According to the petitioner, the work mainly included widening of the road from 3.8 meters width to 5.5 meters width by providing Granular Sub Base (GSB) and then Wet Mix Macadam (WMM) to be laid for the entire road and later Bitumen Macadam (BM) 5 centimeter and Bitumen Concrete (BC) 5 centimeters. Drainage facilities were to be provided by constructing M20 side wall drain of 15 cm thickness. Culverts along the road for cross drainage. Already existing damaged culverts were to be reconstructed.

3. The case of the petitioner is that, for carrying out the said works, shifting of utility lines such as, Kerala Water Authority pipelines, telephone cables, some electric posts and transformers were necessary. Since the shifting of such facilities was beyond the scope of the work entrusted to the petitioner, the petitioner approached the authorities to facilitate the same, but there was delay in carrying out the same, at the instance of the respondents. It is also pointed out that, in such circumstances, the petitioner remitted an amount of ₹1,28,283/- to the KSEB, towards the expenses for shifting the electric poles, as evidenced by Ext.P4. Thereafter, when he was proceeding with works, certain communications were issued by the respondents, alleging that the petitioner is not carrying out the work as per the time schedule submitted by the petitioner in this regard. According to the petitioner, the said communications were at the instance of local MLA.

4. Ultimately, in the meeting convened by the Superintendent Engineer, the 2^nd respondent, on 22.06.2023, after discussing the matter, a decision was taken by the 2nd respondent, terminating the contract of the petitioner, at his risk and cost. It is to be noted that, Ext.P6 decision was taken on 22.06.2023, whereas the time to complete the work was till 04.08.2023. Consequent to the decision taken as per Ext.P6, Ext.P8 order was passed terminating the contract at the risk and cost of the petitioner and it was also intimated that, the amount to be payable by the petitioner towards the damages shall be fixed in due course and would be intimated to the petitioner.

5. Ext.P8 was challenged by the petitioner, by filing W.P(C) No.21705/2023 and this Court, as per Ext.P10 judgment, disposed of the writ petition, by setting aside Ext.P8 on the ground that, the decision taken therein was without giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard. The relevant observations in this regard is extracted below:-

“

6. Normally, when a contract is terminated at the risk and cost of a contractor, he ought to be given an opportunity of being heard and of furnishing his views against such action. This is particularly, where the petitio