Contract termination invalid due to delayed, uncommunicated extension order despite genuine delay reasons; extension granted to original contractor.

JUDGMENT

[WP(C) Nos.34063/2025 & 19728/2024]...

Both these writ petitions are filed by the very same petitioner and the issues involved in these writ petitions are touching upon the termination of contract entered into between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent herein. W.P(C)No.19728 of 2024 is petitioner challenging Ext.P17 order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the 3^rd respondent, by which, the termination of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent was ordered. W.P(C)No.34063 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner challenging Exts.P25 and P26. Ext.P25 order passed by the Government and Ext.P26 consequential order was passed by the Chief Engineer. (W.P(C)No.34063 of 2023 is treated as the leading case and hereinafter exhibits and parties are referred to as prescribed in the said writ petition).

2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner is an ‘A Class’ contractor under the PWD and the petitioner was entrusted with the work of Chithrapuzha-Ponjassery road from CH 3/380 to 8/000 for an amount of Rs.1,72,04,015.06/-, which was below the PAC. An agreement was executed on 21.01.2021 and the site was handed over to the petitioner on 30.01.2021. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the petitioner ought to have completed the work, within six months and the said period was expired on 29.07.2021. According to the petitioner, because of various reasons including, COVID-19, scarcity of materials on account of shut down of quarries due to the ban imposed during the COVID-19 period, monsoon etc, the petitioner could not complete the work and therefore the extensions of time were sought. The same was granted from time to time up to 26.10.2022.

3. The petitioner had submitted the application for further extension of the period beyond 26.10.2022 as per Ext.P1 application dated 25.10.2022. The reasons cited by the petitioner included, non availability of the materials from Cochin Refinery and other stone crushing units owing to the reasons attributable to the Covid-19 pandemic. After considering Ext.P1 application, the 5^th respondent, the Assistant Engineer, recommended extension of time, after finding that, the request of the petitioner is genuine. Thus, the extension was recommended upto 25.1.2023. The 4^th respondent also recommended the extension of time upto 25.1.2023 without the risk and cost of the petitioner, by observing that, the reasons cited by the petitioner are genuine. Ext.P2 is the recommendation made by the 5^th respondent and Ext.P3 is the recommendation made by the 4^th respondent, which are dated 5.11.2022.

4. According to the petitioner, despite the above recommendations, the 3^rd respondent did not act upon the same immediately thereafter, which prompted the petitioner to submit several representations. Ultimately, the petitioner was served with Ext.P8 E-mail dated 25.2.2023, issued by the 2^nd respondent intimating the petitioner that, even though a hearing notice was issued to the petitioner directing the petitioner to attend the office of the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner failed to appear before the said officer and therefore the petitioner was again directed to appear for hearing before the 2^nd respondent on 28.2.2023. The said communication was forwarded to the petitioner in the official e-mail Id of the petitioner viz., vijayconstructions85@gmail.com. However, according to the petitioner, the hearing notice referred to in Ext.P8, was n