Natural justice requires a hearing before imposing liability upon a contractor in case of contract termination.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner, who is a contractor, being aggrieved by the termination of the contract, at the risk and cost of the petitioner. The petitioner was entrusted with the work by the Kerala Water Authority, namely ‘AMRUT Improvements to Thiruvananthapuram Sewerage Scheme Supplying and laying 600 mm DI Pumping main from the pump house at Edathara to STP at Muttathara NH crossing near Lords Hospital by HDD Method’. Thereafter, alleging failure on the part of the petitioner to complete the work in time, the proceedings were initiated to terminate the contract at the risk and cost of the petitioner and to rearrange the work. The specific case of the petitioner is that, Ext.P8, the order passed in this regard, was without giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard.

2. On the other hand, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 to 3, wherein the circumstances under which Ext.P8 happened to be issued were explained. According to the respondents, despite granting several opportunities and time extensions, the petitioner failed to carry out the said work. Even the notices requiring the petitioner to complete the work within a specified time did not yield any result. It was in those circumstances, Ext.P8 proceedings were issued terminating the contract, points out the respondents.

3. I have heard Sri.Mohammed Al Rafi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Georgie Johny, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, issuance of Ext.P8 is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not issued with any show cause notice before passing Ext.P8 and he was also not heard. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel, after referring to the various notices issued to the petitioner, points out that, despite repeated reminders, the petitioner failed to complete the work within the time. The specific contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in response to the same is that, the reasons which prevented the petitioner from completing the work were not attributable to the petitioner, but it was on account of the delay in obtaining the permission from the National Highways Authority of India, as the pipelines were to be laid through the road maintained by the National High Ways Authority of India .

5. Anyhow, these are disputed questions of facts.

However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is a fact that Ext.P8 was issued without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner. The explanation offered by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents while issuing the same is, by highlighting the urgency in the matter, as it was pointed out that, the said work was being monitored by a Division Bench of this Court, and repeated orders were issued by this Court in W.A. No.1484/2023 (The Lords Hospital v. Government of Kerala). It was in those circumstances, taking note of the failure on the part of the petitioner in completing the work, they were compelled to pass Ext.P8 order so as to rearrange the work, to complete the same expeditiously, to comply with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1484/2023. The learned Standing Counsel also pointed out that, as of now, the work is already rearranged and it has been completed.

6. Even while accepting the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents with regard to the urgency, I am of the view that, it can only be applicable in respect of the rearrangement of the work. As far as the liability imposed upon the petitioner consequent to the termination of the contract is concerned, the same will have serious consequences to the petitioner; both monetary as we