The court emphasized that disputes regarding contractual obligations should be resolved through civil law rather than writ jurisdiction, especially when factual issues arise.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a contractor, who was entrusted with work of providing ‘Earth Mat for Construction of 110 KV substation, Eramalloor’. Ext.P1 is the work order awarded to the petitioner on 20.02.2018, and based on the same, Ext.P2 agreement was executed on 22.02.2018. The work was to be completed on or before 20.04.2018. Within the period specified, the petitioner could complete only a portion of the work and according to the petitioner, he submitted Ext.P3 representation, pointing out that, in order to continue the work, the ongoing equipment foundation work in the said site at the instance of the respondents, has to be completed. As per Ext.P3, it was also intimated to the 2^nd respondent that, the balance work can be commenced upon intimation from the 2^nd respondent regarding the completion of equipment foundation work. This communication was issued on

13.03.2018.

2. Later, only as per Ext.P5 dated 28.08.2018, the

2^nd respondent informed the petitioner that the yard foundation at Eramlloor has been completed, and the petitioner was to resume the work urgently, as decided between the parties in the meeting held on 02.06.2018. In response to Ext.P5, the petitioner issued Ext.P6, pointing out that, he is already engaged in execution of another contract, which would be completed on or before 15.10.2018 and therefore, he can resume the work only after 15.10.2018. Therefore, a request for extension of the time for completing the work was made. However, ignoring the same, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P7 by the 2^nd respondent, intimating the petitioner to resume the work within a period of two weeks from 13.09.2018. Even though the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation, without considering the same, Exts.P9 and P10 notices were issued to the petitioner, proposing to terminate the work, and ultimately the work was terminated as per Ext.P12 at the risk and cost of the contractor. As part of the recovery of damages, the security deposit made by the petitioner was forfeited as well. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P12.

3. A statement has been submitted by the respondents, wherein, the circumstances under which the decision was taken to terminate the contract were explained. According to the respondents, it was on account of the lapses on the part of the petitioner in completing the work in time and also within the extended time, the contract was terminated and proceedings were initiated for realizing the loss sustained to the 1^st respondent. It is also averred that, the total loss incurred by the respondents was quantified as Rs.1,15,141/- and after adjusting the security deposit and bill amount payable to the portion of the work carried out by the petitioner, an amount Rs.15,566/- is recoverable from the petitioner.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended about the discrepancies in Ext.P12 and the procedure followed in issuing Ext.P12. It is asserted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and it was on account of the laches on the part of the respondents in making available a hindrance free site for executing the work, the work could not be performed and completed in time.

6. After carefully going through the records, I am of the view that, the dispute can be resolved only by settling certain factual disputes with regard to the circumstances under which the work could not be completed. The incidental question also arises whether it was on account of the fault on the part of the petitioner or on the part of the