Court affirmed a petitioner’s right to continue contract work following permitted extension by the respondent.

Headnote:This writ petition challenges the termination of a contract (Ext.P6). The petitioner indicated that the work time has been extended, allowing continuation of the project. The court closed the petition without prejudice to the petitioner's contentions. [Para 1-2]

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P6, by which the contract was terminated. Today when the matter came up for consideration, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the time to complete the work is extended by the respondents and the petitioner is now continuing with the work.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is closed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 19005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JP.RADHAKRISHNAN – AppellantVersusTHE STATE OF KERALA – RespondentWP(C) NO. 35060 OF 2025

Court affirmed a petitioner’s right to continue contract work following permitted extension by the respondent.

Headnote:This writ petition challenges the termination of a contract (Ext.P6). The petitioner indicated that the work time has been extended, allowing continuation of the project. The court closed the petition without prejudice to the petitioner's contentions. [Para 1-2]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
P.RADHAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 35060 OF 2025