Contractors must fulfill obligations under signed agreements regardless of subsequent site conditions unless formal amendments are made to the contract.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is a registered 'A' Class PWD Contractor and who has undertaken the work of improvement of Vilanilam – Pilakavu Road in Mananthavady Grama Panchayat, seeks to quash Ext.P32 order and to declare that the 2^nd respondent is incompetent to pass an order like Ext.P32 rescinding Ext.P1 work contract under the risk and cost of the petitioner and to order forfeiture of Performance Guarantee and Additional Performance Guarantee offered to the work. The petitioner has also sought incidental reliefs in the matter.

2. The petitioner states that on 17.02.2022, the petitioner has entered into Ext.P1 agreement for execution of the work named 'Improvement of Vilanilam - Pilakavu Road in Mananthavady Grama Panchayat, Mananthavady LAC, Wayanad-14'. The estimate amount of the work was ₹3,89,00,000/-. The petitioner had agreed to complete the work for an amount of ₹2,78,70,165.66. The petitioner submits that after execution of Ext.P1 agreement, the Site was handed over to the petitioner on 26.02.2022. The work had to be completed within a period of nine months.

3. On 02.03.2022, a Site Inspection was arranged by the 6^th respondent. The petitioner and the 6^th respondent inspected the Site. During the Site Inspection, it was noted that the estimate prepared by the respondent does not match with the work to be executed. Ext.P3 estimate did not include certain material items of work which were necessary for the completion of the awarded work.

4. The petitioner, therefore, submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 15.07.2022 before the Project Director. The petitioner pointed out that in the estimate, the width of the road was 6 metre. However, when the work started, the road had to be constructed in 7 metre width in some areas. There were disputes and public demands in certain areas for construction of work with 7 metre width. Therefore, earthwork had to be postponed. In Ext.P7, the petitioner pointed out that there were waterlogging issues up to 75 centimeter height in some portions of the road. These portions of the road are damaged. The road height has to be increased in certain areas and additional earth filling is required.

5. The petitioner also submitted that for the construction of RCC retaining wall, designing and drawings are not made available. The petitioner, therefore, requested the Project Director to extend the period for completion of work till 30.05.2023. Thereafter, a joint inspection was further conducted by respondents 2, 4 and 6 along with the petitioner. After the inspection, the respondents drew Ext.P10 report dated 05.09.2022. From Ext.P10, it is evident that additional construction of retaining wall to an extent of 200 metres is necessary for completing the work awarded to the petitioner. Ext.P10 also pointed out that there was waterlogging in certain portions of the road up to a height of 1 metre and those portions of road had to be constructed with rigid pavement model. Ext.P10 report indicated that such additional work would cause an additional expenditure of ₹3,50,00,000/-.

6. The petitioner states that in spite of Ext.P10 report, the petitioner continued with the work. In fact, by Ext.P11 communication dated 31.10.2022, the respondents have informed the financier of the petitioner that the petitioner has completed 35% of the work.

7. The petitioner submitted that for completion of the work, about 24 electric posts were to be removed. The petitioner required the respondents to take necessary steps for removal