The authority must substantiate claims of loss before withholding payments and ensure due process for affected parties.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petitions were preferred, being aggrieved by the non-release of the contract work amount. The original petitioner in both the writ petitions was an 'A' Grade Government Contractor who had been awarded two works, viz., I.CRF work improvements and strengthening of weak pavements by providing BM & BC for MPR starting from 581/600 connecting Balaramapuram- Poovvar in Thiruvananthapuram II.CRF 2013-14 improvements of Udiyankulangara Plamoottukkada – Charottukonam – Chenkavila and Plamoottukkada – Idichakka Plamoodu on NH 47.

2. The contractual amounts for the respective works were Rs.10,47,97,304/- and Rs.10,22,73,294/-. The contractual agreement for the first work was signed on 18.02.2015, and for the second work on 15.05.2015. The initial time for the completion of the works, as per the agreement, was 24.11.2015, and

29.07.2015, respectively. These deadlines were later extended to

30.04.2016, and 29.12.2015.

3. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the original petitioner passed away. Consequently, his legal heirs were impleaded as supplemental petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 7123 of 2017, and the amended petition, W.P.(C) No. 26363 of 2017, was preferred by his legal heirs.

4. According to the petitioner, the first work was successfully completed on 30.04.2016, and the second work was successfully completed on 29.12.2015. The original defect liability period (DLP) for both works was three years from the date of completion. Accordingly, the DLP was scheduled to end on 29.04.2019, for the first work, and 28.12.2018, for the second work. However, the petitioner contends that the authorities illegally extended the DLP to seven years to cover anticipated damages. These extended periods expired on 29.04.2023, for the first work, and 30.12.2022, for the second work.

5. The amount of Rs.2,91,32,516/-, which had been recovered towards anticipated damages for a further period of four years beyond the agreement condition, was released on 26.07.2023, for the first work. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 2,90,23,226/-, recovered towards anticipated damages over a four-year extension beyond the agreement condition, was released on 27.04.2023, for the second work.

6. Thereafter, during the pendency of both these writ petitions, this Court issued an order dated 18.11.2024 directing the Superintending Engineer to carry out a joint inspection of the work. On noticing that there were certain factual disputes regarding the completion of the work, the Superintending Engineer was directed to file a report before this Court concerning the specific areas under dispute. The petitioner was also permitted to take part in the verification, either personally or through a representative.

7. In compliance with the court's direction, the Superintending Engineer preferred a report, dated 22.01.2025, stating that the work is defect-free. After reviewing the report, this Court also observed in its order dated 05.02.2025 that there is no substantial defect to the road even after ten years. In such circumstances, the court further observed that the findings in Ext. R3(k) prima facie seems to be untenable. It is also noted that the defect liability period ended on 31.12.2018. Hence, there is no justification for withholding the amounts due to the petitioner.

8. The court further observed that the officers of the Department are duty-bound to supervise the work entrusted to the contractor. Supervision entails the measurement of the work and scrutiny of the quality and quantity of the materials used. They are also duty-bound to inform the contractor immediately about shortcomings, if any. However, it was noted that some of the officials were negligent. Moreover, no reports show that d