Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 15681
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
B SUNDARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 8167 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH, SHRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN, SHRI.BABU M., SMT.ANCY THANKACHAN, SMT.KRISHNENDU.D, SHRI.XAVIER K.K., SMT.SAHALA FATHIMA
The court recognizes the impact of unforeseen circumstances on contract obligations and mandates consideration of the contractor's circumstances before termination enforcement.
Headnote:This judgment addresses the challenges faced by the petitioner, a licensed contractor, regarding the termination of his contract for construction work. The petitioner's plea for additional time due to unforeseen circumstances, specifically a landslide impacting quarry operations, was considered. The court directed the respondent to evaluate the petitioner's representations for possible redress while placing a hold on coercive actions related to the contract termination. The directive emphasizes the need for due consideration of the petitioner's circumstances before taking further steps against him.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contract termination grounds and procedures. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. consideration of unforeseen circumstances in contract compliance. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's directive for proper evaluation of petitions. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is an ‘A Class’ licensed contractor under the Irrigation and Harbour Engineering Department of the Government of Kerala. The petitioner was awarded with the work for the replenishment of Northern Break Water at Chettuva Fishing Harbour on as per tender dated 27.10.2021. However, due to various reasons the petitioner could not complete the work within the time contemplated. Ultimately, contract was terminated and the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.15252 of 2024. The same was disposed of as per Ext.P14 judgment, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and to pass orders thereon after hearing the petitioner.
2. Accordingly, Ext.P15 was passed, wherein, the petitioner was granted two months time to complete the work by supplying the materials and it was decided to consider the revocation of the termination after evaluating the performance of the petitioner in fulfilling the obligation. However, according to the respondents, the petitioner could not fulfill the obligation as per Ext.P15, and hence Ext.P16 is issued confirming the termination and directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.51,92,633/- as the risk and cost of the termination.
3. According to the petitioner, even though the petitioner had agreed to supply necessary materials which includes the quarry materials within two months, the petitioner could not comply with the same for the reasons beyond his control. Immediately after Ext.P15 was issued, on account of the landslide occurred at Chooralmala, Wayanad, a ban for quarrying activities was imposed throughout the State and therefore, the petitioner could not procure the goods as required for the fulfillment of the obligation in Ext.P15.
4. In such circumstances, the petitioner has highlighted this aspect in Ext.P17 representation before the Superintending Engineer, Harbour Engineering Department, the 3rd respondent herein and Ext.P21, before the 2nd respondent. Limited relief sought by the petitioner is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the matter and to pass orders thereon.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition.
Accordingly, it is ordered that, Ext.P21 shall be taken by the 2nd respondent and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner. Till such time, no coercive proceedings based on Ext.P16 shall be initiated against the petitioner.
Sd/-
