The absence of a hearing before contract termination constitutes a fundamental procedural flaw requiring judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a PWD contractor, who entered into an agreement with the 4^th respondent on 29.04.2023 for carrying out the work under the name ‘RKVY 2022-2023- Infrastructural Development of various padashekharams in Vayalar Panchayat of Alappuzha District’. Ext.P1 is the letter of acceptance dated 17.04.2023 and Ext.P2 is the agreement dated 29.04.2023.

2. As per the terms and conditions in the agreement, the petitioner was supposed to complete the work within a period of twelve months from the date of handing over the site. To be precise, 25% of the work ought to have been completed in within three months, 50% within six months and 75% within nine months and 100% within twelve months from the date of handing over the site. Based on the terms and conditions of the agreement, the site was handed over to the petitioner on 05.05.2023. According to the petitioner, going by the nature of the work, which relates to the removal of grass and rubbish from the water bodies, the petitioner will have to have access to private properties where these water bodies are situated, to execute the work effectively. According to the petitioner, the respondents failed to obtain necessary permissions and no objection certificates from the respective owners of the properties, so as to enable the petitioner to execute the work. This affected the pace of the work and hence the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation on 16.04.2024 before the 4^th respondent, highlighting this aspect and requesting the 4^th respondent to make necessary facilities for carrying out the work by removing the said difficulties.

According to the petitioner, the same was not considered.

3. Thereafter, based on the request submitted by the petitioner, the period of work was extended up to 04.10.2024. The last extension granted was with a fine of Rs.50,000/-. According to the petitioner, later, without taking note of the practical difficulties of the petitioner, Ext.P8 order was issued by the 4^th respondent, terminating the contract and re-arranging the work at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Ext.P8 is under challenge in this writ petition. Being aggrieved by Ext.P8, the petitioner submitted Exts.P9 to P13 representations highlighting the said grievances. In the meantime, the respondents notified Ext.P16 fresh notice inviting tender in respect of the remaining work, and the petitioner is also challenging Ext.P16 notification in this writ petition.

4. A detailed counter affidavit has been submitted by the respondents 1 to 7, controverting the averments contained in the writ petition and also explaining the circumstances under which, the decision was taken to rearrange the work at the risk and cost of the petitioner. In the said counter affidavit, it was contended by the respondents that, the nature of the work proposed under the project was deepening the main thodu and inner chals of the padasekharam, constructing engine thara (2 Nos.) for dewatering the fields, constructing Engine shed (2 Nos.), for providing storage of pumps and dewatering the paddy fields etc. which are all directly benefiting the local inhabitants of the area, apart from helping the farmer community as a whole. It was also contended that, as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Development Corporation Limited (Special Powers) Act, 1974 for implementing any scheme, the Corporation need not obtain NOC from the land owners, since the project itself was intended for the benefit of the people of the locality. Therefore, according to the respondents, the fact that no objection could not be obta