The Court determined that contractual disputes involving factual questions requiring evidence must be resolved outside the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an approved Government Contractor, who used to undertake Civil Contracts awarded by the Central Public Works Department and other Government Departments. As part of the same, the petitioner undertook the work awarded by the 1^st respondent, for the construction of a mall named “Suburban Mall” at Piravom in Ernakulam District. The said Mall was being constructed by the 1^st respondent for the purpose of the 3^rd respondent, the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation and the 1^st respondent was the implementing agency. Based on the same, an agreement was executed on 25.02.2015, between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent. The 2^nd respondent is the Regional in charge of the 1^st petitioner and as per the terms and the conditions of the same, the work ought to have been completed within a period of 15 months from the date of letter of Award. Thus, the period within which the work ought to have been completed was 19.03.2016.

2. According to the petitioner, after commencement of the work, a necessity arose, for altering the manner in which the piling work was to be done, as it was found that, instead of ordinary piling method, raft foundation will have to be made. There occurred some delay in completing the work on account of the same and thus, the work could be completed only in the year 2020. It is also the case of the petitioner that, in the meantime, despite the fact that the 1^st respondent was under an obligation to make the payment towards the part bills within a specified time, the same was also not affected and this has also contributed to the delay. The other reasons the petitioner highlighted for causing the delay are, the flood that occurred in the year 2018 and also the Covid-19 pandemic.

3. The petitioner also places reliance upon Ext.P2-Government Order issued, where the question of delay in completing the project was considered by the Government and found that the 1^st respondent was responsible for the lapses, including that of additional cost for providing raft foundation, which was due to the unprofessional management, and in the said order, appropriate action and penalty was suggested to be imposed against the 1^st respondent. Thus, according to the petitioner, the change in the nature of the piling work was due to the reasons attributable to the 1^st respondent. Ext.P2 Government Order would go to show that the responsibility has been imposed upon the 1^st respondent. However, the 1^st respondent had passed on the said liability upon the petitioner. Ultimately, the work was completed on 09.09.2020 and Ext.P6 is the completion certificate evidencing the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the fact that, the work was completed, even though belatedly, the amounts payable to the petitioner towards the bills have not been released so far. Apart from the payments covered by the bills, the petitioner also submits that the amount towards the GST component in the contract, the amount deducted from the petitioner towards GST, amount payable towards service tax for the period prior to 01.07.2017, the security deposit furnished by the petitioner, etc., are also yet to be released.

4. In such circumstances, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was numbered as W.P.(C)No.25111/2023, and it culminated in Ext.P17 judgment. As per the said judgment, this Court directed the 1^st respondent herein, to take a each of his claims, adverting to every documents and orders to be produced by him during the afore exercise. Later, the petitioner submitted C