A notice demanding completion of contractual work must consider prior recommendations, and failure to do so warrants judicial intervention and an opportunity for the contractor to be heard.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9 notice issued by the

3^rd respondent requiring the petitioner to complete the remaining work within a period of seven days. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was awarded with the work by name “ General Civil work PWD –(Roads) Providing 40 mm graded CC and berm protection to Elamadu -Thevannoor road Ch.0/000 to 6/950” by the 3^rd respondent. Ext.P1 is the agreement dated 28.05.2021. According to the petitioner, the substantial portion of the work is already completed and out of 7 Kms, an extent of 750 meters are remaining to be completed. The case of the petitioner is that, the work could not be completed by the petitioner, due to various reasons, not attributable to the petitioner, which include delay in sanctioning revised estimates. Now, as there occurred a huge delay, it is not feasible for the petitioner to complete the work as per the agreed rates.

2. In such circumstances, a representation was submitted by the petitioner highlighting these aspects and acting upon the same, Ext.P8 was issued by the Executive Engineer accepting the contentions raised by the petitioner and recommending that the petitioner be relieved from the remaining work without any risk and cost. However, without considering Ext.P8, Ext.P9 notice has been issued by the 3^rd respondent requiring the petitioner to complete the remaining work within a period of seven days. As against the same, Ext.P10 representation has been submitted before the 3^rd respondent, highlighting the difficulties of the petitioner and also referring to the recommendations made by the Executive Engineer as evidenced by Ext.P8. The limited relief sought by the petitioner is to direct the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P10 in the light of the recommendations made by the 4^th respondent in Ext.P8.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition. This is particularly because Ext.P8 contains certain observations in favour of the petitioner and the 4^th respondent also recommended to relieve the petitioner from the work without any risk and cost. On going through Ext.P9, it is seen that the said recommendations have not been considered. Therefore, it is only proper that, a decision in this regard be taken acting upon Ext.P10.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the

3^rd respondent to take up Ext.P10 and to pass appropriate orders after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard, taking into account the observations and recommendations made in Ext.P8 by the 4^th respondent. The necessary orders in this regard shall be passed, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, no coercive proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner based on Ext.P9.

Sd/-