The Model Code of Conduct does not permit new projects unless specific conditions are met, including contractual obligations within a defined timeframe.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner, a works contractor who was issued with Ext.P2 letter of acceptance in respect of the work covered by Ext.P1 tender notification. The reliefs sought in the writ petition is as follows:

A. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, to permit the Petitioner to execute a formal agreement in terms of Ext.P2, Letter of Acceptance;

B. Declare that the refusal on the part of respondents 1 and 2 to execute agreement citing MCC is illegal and arbitrary.

C. Issue any other appropriate writ, order, or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice;

D. Award the costs of this petition to the petitioner.

E. To dispense with filing of English translation of vernacular documents.

2. Apparently, the writ petition was filed seeking the reliefs as referred to above, in view of the fact that the Kerala Water Authority, which is the tendering authority, is not entering into the contract pursuant to Ext.P2 letter of acceptance for the reason that the Model Code of Conduct, in connection with the ensuing election to the legislative assembly, came into force with effect from 15.03.2026.

3. Today when the matter came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd and 4th respondents opposed the relief sought by the petitioner, pointing out that, the work which is the subject matter, was notified as per Ext.P1, as early as on 03.04.2025, and the last date of submission of the tender was 30.04.2025. The opening of tenders was on 02.05.2025. Thereafter, the tender was finalized on 13.08.2025, and despite the above, the letter of acceptance was issued only on 14.03.2026, just a date preceding to the date of notification for election.

4. Thus, it is pointed out that there is no reason to consider the relief at the moment. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent and 4^th respondent also placed reliance upon the relevant clauses in the Code of Conduct, particularly clause 15 thereof, which reads as follows:

“15. The following type of new works (whether beneficiary or work oriented) that fulfill all the following conditions before Model Code of Conduct comes into effect, can be taken up under intimation to the Commission:

a. Full funding has been tied up.

b. Administrative, technical and financial sanctions have been

obtained

c. Tender has been floated, evaluated and awarded and

d. There is contractual obligation to start and end the work

within a given time frame and failing which there is an obligation to impose penalty on the contractor.

e. In case of any of the above conditions not being met in such cases prior approval of the Commission shall be sought and obtained”.

5. On carefully going through the same, it can be seen that, the new projects can be permitted during the operation of the Code of Conduct only in the circumstances referred to above. One of the said conditions is that there must be a contractual obligation to start and end the work within a given time frame, and failing that, there must be an obligation to impose a penalty on the contractor.

6. In this case, it is seen that, as per the terms and conditions, there is no obligation to start the work within a specified time limit, and when it comes to the question of ending the work, the time frame starts only from the date on which the site is handed over. The said event is yet to occur, and hence, I am of the view that, this is a case that does not fall under the categories referred to in the above clause. As regards the Kerala Water Authority, the only apprehension voiced is that the fund would elapse on 31.03.2026. However, it i