Contractual obligations regarding delayed construction projects must consider the contractor's contributions to delays and enforceability of claims under economic duress.

JUDGMENT

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for declaration and recovery of money under a PWD works contract, is the appellant. He challenges the impugned judgment by which the reliefs sought by him were declined by the Sub Court.

2. For ease of reference, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff is an A-grade construction contractor to whom the work of formation of a canal (KIP & TDCP LBC formation of Pallimon distributory from Ch. 0 m to 7000 m, including CD works) was awarded by the Public Works Department (PWD) pursuant to a tender submitted on 21.02.1995. As per the letter of acceptance dated 19.04.1995, he was informed that his tender was accepted at (+) 35% above the estimated rate based on the 1992 PWD Schedule of Rates. Accordingly, on 21.04.1995, he executed an agreement with the third defendant, stipulating a contract period of 18 months from the date of handing over possession of the work site. Possession of the site was handed over on the following day, i.e., 22.04.1995, and the stipulated contract period was therefore to expire on 21.10.1996.

3. Briefly stated, the work involved earthwork excavation for the formation of a canal and allied works. The earthwork excavation was estimated at 2,00,650 cubic metres. According to the plaintiff, commencement of the work was delayed as the defendants took the initial levels for excavation only on 01.11.1995. He further contended that the defendants were bound to provide a dump yard for disposal of surplus spoil obtained during excavation, as evidenced by Ext.X2(a), pages 166 and 167. By Ext.A2 letter dated 03.11.1995, the plaintiff requested the defendants to provide a dump yard at the earliest or, alternatively, to pay Rs.100 per cubic metre towards transportation of surplus spoil with an average lead of 20 km from the site, as no disposal yard was available at a shorter distance.

4. Pursuant to Ext.A2, the plaintiff further contended that the fourth defendant addressed the Special Tahsildar (LA), Kottiyam, requesting acquisition of 20 acres of land near the canal alignment for disposal of surplus spoil. The Special Tahsildar reportedly intimated that acquisition would require at least six months and would entail considerable cost. The plaintiff alleges that the Chief Engineer and subordinate officers thereafter inspected the site and the dumping area suggested by him (with an average lead of 20 km from the site, as stated in Ext.A2), and consequently approved a rate of Rs.91.81 per cubic metre for conveyance of the spoil (Ext.B7).

5. Meanwhile, the site was inspected by two Chief Engineers, the Additional Secretary (Law Department), and the Additional Secretary (Finance Department), along with other senior PWD officials. They reportedly found that no land was available for disposal of surplus spoil and recommended payment of conveyance charges to the plaintiff. It is further alleged that the foundation of an aqueduct was set out and measurements recorded on 06.03.1996, and that designs and drawings were finalised introducing extra items, thereby increasing the value of the work from Rs.4,76,63,804/- to Rs.6,54,25,509/-. Although the contract period expired on 21.10.1996, the plaintiff was permitted to continue the work, allegedly due to delays attributable to the defendants.

6. On 18.06.1997