Contractor cannot be held liable for delays due to the government's failure in land acquisition, absolving them from costs.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P11 to the extent it recommends that the petitioner has to be absolved with the risk and cost. The petitioner also seeks for quashing Exts.P14 to P16.

2. The petitioner is a Government Contractor. In response to a notification inviting tenders for 'budget work, 2016-17, Tirur LAC - construction of Approach Road of Thazhepalam Parallel Bridge in Malappuram District', issued by the respondents, the petitioner submitted its tender. The tender was accepted and Ext.P1 agreement was executed on 19.02.2018. The time fixed for completion of the work was six months from the date of handing over the site. As per the contention of the petitioner, the land was handed over on 27.02.2018 and the work has to be completed on or before 27.08.2018, ie., six months from 27.02.2018. The petitioner submits that the work consists of construction of an approach road including earthwork, tarring etc., for which prior construction of embankment through the whole extent of the approach road was required. But a certain extent of land on the Tanur side of the Tazhepalam Parallel bridge was held by a private party and the work was tendered by the Department without acquiring the said portion of the land. The petitioner submits that though the site was handed over on 27.02.2018, the same was without the land which is to be retrieved from the private party. It is also submitted that the private party has approached this Court filing W.P.(C)No.22168 of 2017, which was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment directing the authorities to maintain status quo, till the revision petition filed against the order of eviction is disposed of by the Government. Pointing out the legal proceedings in relation to the portion of the approach road, Ext.P3 intimation dated 13.04.2018 was issued by the 4^th respondent to the 5^th respondent, so as to examine the feasibility of completing the work avoiding the portion of the land with regard to which status quo was ordered by this Court as per Ext.P2. In the meanwhile, after handing over the site, the work was immediately started by the petitioner on the portion in which initial level was taken by the Department. The 5^th respondent after conducting a study, submitted Ext.P4 report intimating that it is impossible to construct a retaining wall without taking the private land as per the demarcated boundaries by the Revenue/Survey Department and further requesting to take necessary steps to complete the land acquisition procedures to purchase the land. Thereupon, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 request for handing over the site, but even thereafter, the said portion, which is in possession of the private person, has not been handed over to the petitioner. Thereupon a further request was made on 06.08.2018 as per Ext.P6, requesting extension of time up to 31.12.2018 for completion, pointing out that, the Department has not handed over a portion of the road after taking initial level to the petitioner. After submitting Ext.P6 request in this behalf, Ext.P7 report was filed by the 4^th respondent before the Superintending Engineer requesting to grant extension of time to the petitioner, without insisting for any payment. In Ext.P6, it is specifically stated that since a portion of land required for construction of road is not available, the work could not be completed by the petitioner. But the Department did not take any steps in this regard. Thereupon, Ext.P8 request was filed by the petitioner requesting either to absolve him from further execution of the work or to allow revised rate for the completion of the work. Since there was no response, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 request before the 3^rd respondent. While so, the Department released an amount of Rs.14,64,051/- to the petitioner for the completed work, except