Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not for disputed factual questions on contract site handover.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner, a contractor, who was awarded with the work for reconstruction of existing bridge at Karimanthodu in Pathanamthitta District. Ext.P4 is the agreement dated 23.06.2025 entered into between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent in this regard. According to the petitioner, a hindrance free site was not handed over to the petitioner. It is also stated that, access to the bridge is through the property of certain private persons, and possession of the said property has not been handed over to him. The petitioner also submitted that he had submitted several representations highlighting this aspect, but the same were not considered. Now the petitioner was issued with Exts.P10 and P11 communications, requiring the petitioner to commence the work and complete the same immediately.

2. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances, seeking the following reliefs:

“i. To declare that the petitioner is entitled for enhanced rates applicable for 2021 PWD work rates from what is shown in the Exhibit P-4 due to the delay on the part of respondents in acquiring lands and handing over to him;

ii. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to immediately acquire sufficient land from private individuals and to hand over the same officially to the petitioner to enable him to start works specified in Ext P-4 contract;

iii. To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to refund Rs. Rs.10,55,000/- deposited by the petitioner as caution deposit with interest for the undue delay in land acquisition and handing over the same by the respondents;

iv. To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to issue an addendum to Ext P-4 contract re-allocating the work to the petitioner with enhanced work rates issued by PWD for the year 2021;

v. To permit the petitioner to produce English translation of vernacular documents as and when directed by this Hon'ble Court;

vi. To issue such other reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. After carefully going through the records, I find that, as far as the reliefs sought by the petitioner is concerned, those are beyond the scope of a writ petition. Basic question involved pertains to the alleged failure of handing over the hindrance free site. However, in Ext.P10 notice, it has been specifically mentioned that, the site was handed over to the petitioner on 03.07.2025 itself, but the work has not been commenced. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, unless certain private properties are made available, the petitioner may not be in a position to commence the work, I am of the view that, this is a matter to be examined by the competent authorities. Under no circumstances, the same can be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the same is a disputed question of fact. Therefore, I do not find that the reliefs sought by the petitioner are entertainable before this Court in a writ jurisdiction.

In such circumstances, the petitioner is granted an opportunity to submit a representation before the 3^rd respondent, if the petitioner has any grievance. In case such representation is submitted within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered by the 3^rd respondent within a period of two weeks thereafter, after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard. It is clarified that this Court has considered only the question of maintainability of the reliefs sought and not entered into any finding on the contention raised by the petitioner on merits.