The court affirmed that inability to fulfill contractual obligations such as providing a bank guarantee precluded the petitioner from relief under the writ jurisdiction.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner was awarded with the work of “Construction of Infrastructure Facilities for SARBTM Government College, Koyilandi, Kozhikode”. The project was funded by the 2^nd respondent and was implemented through the 3^rd respondent. Exhibit P1 is the letter of award of work dated 30-09-2020. According to the petitioner for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner including the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner could not complete the work within the time and finally by Ext.P11 communication dated 09-02-2022 the contract awarded to the petitioner was terminated at the risk and cost of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, though the petitioner took up the matter with the 3^rd respondent and also intimated its willingness to complete the work, provided some extension of time granted, no action was taken by the 3^rd respondent.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent would submit that this court on 11-12-2025 had passed the following order; “The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the work awarded to the petitioner has been terminated, the petitioner is ready and willing to take up the work and complete the same within a period of four months, without prejudice to any claim for damages or penalty that may be imposed for the delay in completion of the work. It is submitted that the work has not been re-tendered and has not been taken up by any other agency.

The learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel appearing for the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB), and the learned Counsel appearing for KITCO seek time to obtain instructions.

Post on 06-01-2026. ”

It is submitted that following the order dated 11-12-2025 the 3^rd respondent has informed the petitioner that if the petitioner is willing to provide a bank guarantee having a value of 30% of the value of the remaining work to be completed, the 3^rd respondent can permit the petitioner to complete the work within some extended time. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent that the petitioner has expressed his inability to provide any bank guarantee and therefore the 3^rd respondent is not in a position to consider the request for permitting the petitioner to complete the work within a further extended time. It is also submitted that though the work was retendered, the work has not been awarded to the new contractor on account of the fact that this writ petition is pending.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and in the facts and circumstances noticed above, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the termination of the work awarded to the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to have the dispute adjudicated by resort to the dispute resolution mechanism in the contract between the parties. There are no extraordinary circumstances pointed out by the petitioner for the exercise of writ jurisdiction to determine the disputes between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. Though the 3^rd respondent was willing to permit the petitioner to continue with the work subject to the condition that the petitioner provides a bank guarantee in the manner indicted above, the petitioner has expressed its inability to provide such a bank guarantee. Therefore the relief of directing the 3^rd respondent to permit the petitioner to continue with work also cannot be considered. Therefore, reserving liberty of the petitioner to have its disputes with the 3^rd respondent adjudicated in the manner contemplated by the contract, this