Non-completion of contractual work due to the party's failure to obtain necessary permissions does not attribute fault to the contractor.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a contractor who was awarded the work, “AMRUT 2.0 – WSS to Thripunithura Municipality – Providing FHTC, by augmenting or retrofitting the existing Water Supply Scheme and laying new rider line (Thiruvankulam Zone – Ward Nos. 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, and 25) – Package I – Pipeline work.” Exhibit P2 is the agreement executed between the petitioner and the Kerala Water Authority, on 05.06.2023.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had completed 93% of the work, and the remaining work could not be completed, as the Water Authority failed to obtain the road cutting permission for the same. According to the petitioner, despite repeated requests and reminders, the Water Authority has, so far, not obtained such permission, which prevents the petitioner from executing the remaining work. It is also the case of the petitioner that, by passage of time, the completion of the work at the rates quoted by the petitioner became not feasible. Therefore, the petitioner seeks foreclosure of the agreement and a direction to the respondents to release the performance guarantee and additional performance guarantee to the petitioner.

3. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the respondents, wherein, it is admitted that 93% of the work has been completed. However, with regard to the road cutting permission, it is averred that, even though an application was submitted to the National Highway Authority of India, permission has not been granted so far.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

5. On carefully going through the records, it is evident that the non-completion of the work is not due to reasons attributable to the petitioner, rather, it is due to the failure on the part of the Water Authority to obtain the road cutting permission. The agreement was executed in the year 2023, and the original period was up to 14.10.2023, which was subsequently extended up to 31.03.2024. It is discernible from the records that, even now, the respondents are not in a position to obtain the road cutting permission, and, therefore, the contention that, by passage of time, completion of the work at the rates quoted by the petitioner in the agreement became not feasible, is a matter that cannot be ignored.

6. Besides, it is also an admitted position that the petitioner had completed 93% of the work. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the Kerala Water Authority to obtain and communicate the road cutting permission, if obtained, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

In case the permission is not obtained and communicated to the petitioner within the said period, Ext. P2 agreement shall be foreclosed without the risk and cost of the petitioner, and the performance guarantee and additional performance guarantee shall be released to the petitioner within a period of two months thereafter.

Sd/-