Court directs release of undisputed payments for 70% completed contract work despite pending dispute.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a registered contractor with the Kerala Water Authority. The petitioner was awarded with the work for laying sewer lines in Thiruvananthapuram based on the agreement executed between the parties on 07.01.2021. Total contract amount was Rs.2,63,59,930/- and the period within which the work was to be completed was 9 months. In terms of the contract, the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.1,73,327/- as the retention amount and a further amount of Rs.13,18,000/- as security deposit. In addition to that, an amount of Rs.3,46,655/- was also deposited towards trial run and commissioning. According to the petitioner, as the work was to be executed through 16 byroads and 2 main roads, cutting permissions were to be obtained from the authorities concerned, there occurred delay in obtaining such permission and consequently, the execution of the work get prolonged. 2. According to the petitioner, on several occasions, the petitioner sought extension of time, but the same were not responded to. As a consequence of the failure on the part of the respondents to extend the time and the delay in the work, the credit facility availed by the petitioner from the bank was cancelled and therefore, when the respondent insisted the petitioner to re-commence the work he was not in a proper financial position to carryout the same. Therefore, the petitioner sought for relieving him from the work without risk and cost. However, the request made by the petitioner in this regard was rejected as per the decision taken in the meeting held on 30.12.2022. Based on the said decision, Ext.P5 proceedings were initiated by the Superintending Engineer, by which it was decided to rearrange the balance work at the risk and cost of the petitioner and realize the loss sustained by the Kerala Water Authority form the petitioner.

3. The petitioner had already submitted commercial suit as CS.No.33 of 2023 before the Commercial Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which is now pending consideration. The said suit was filed by the petitioner seeking a decree allowing the petitioner to realize the amount of Rs.58,37,982/-, which include the retention amount, security deposit and deposit for additional cost incurred due to non-

availability of fund. The said suit is now pending consideration.

4. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in view of the fact that, even in Ext.P5, it is specifically admitted by the respondent that, 70% of the works are already completed and therefore, the petitioner seeks for a direction to pay the amount for the works the petitioner had already carried out. The petitioner had already highlighted this aspect in Ext.P7 representation, which is now pending before the 1^st respondent. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the respondents 1 and 2 denying the averments contained in the writ petition and opposing the reliefs.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

6. As far as the action taken by the respondents to rearrange the work at the risk and cost of the petitioner is concerned, the same is now the subject matter of the original suit, which is now pending before the Commercial Court as evidenced by Ext.P6. However, since it is an admitted position that, 70% of the work is already completed, the undisputed portion of the amount will have to be released to the petitioner. Since the petitioner is already submitted Ext.P7 representation before the 1^st respondent, a decision in this regard will have to be taken by the 1^st respondent.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1^st respondent to act upon Ext.P7 representation and ensure that the payment of the undisputed amount is released to the pe