IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

MONDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 30555 OF 2025 PETITIONER:

BINU MATHEW, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW VARGHESE, KOTTAVIRUTHIL HOUSE, ANAPRAMPA (N) P.O. THALAVADY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 689 572.

BY ADVS. SHRI.ANAND SASIDHARAN SHRI.SAJEEVAN V.T.

SMT.SREEDEVI V.S.

SHRI.ARJUN S. PRAKASH RESPONDENTS:

1 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY PROJECT DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689 101.

2 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689 101.

3 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN – 695 001.

SHRI.GEORGIE JOHNY, STANDING COUNSEL SHRI.JUSTINE JACOB, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a contractor who had undertaken the work of the 3^rd respondent, based on an agreement dated 07.11.2023, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the date of completion of the work was stipulated as 06.08.2024. According to the petitioner, the work could not be commenced immediately after the execution of the agreement, as there was delay in handing over the site, which was done only on 19.01.2025. The 1^st respondent also recommended extension of time after 31.12.2025 without any escalation of rates, recognizing that the delay was not attributable to the contractor.

2. However, the 2^nd respondent while granting extension, imposed a nominal penalty of Rs.2,000/-. Ext.P3 is the said order and this writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P3 to that extent.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel, I find no reason to interfere with the imposition of penalty, which is a nominal amount. This is particularly because, a nominal amount of penalty was imposed by the 2^nd respondent only in view of the fact that the application was submitted by the petitioner much after the period fixed for completion. To be precise, even though the date for completion of the work was 06.08.2024, application was submitted only on 19.02.2025. It was in these circumstances the penalty order was issued. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order.

However, it is to be clarified that, even while upholding the imposition of penalty as per Ext.P3, it is to be noted that the delay in completion of the work was only due to the lapses on the part of the respondents, which is evident from Ext.P3 itself. Therefore, even while upholding the imposition of penalty without any interference in Ext.P3, it is clarified that the imposition of penalty of Rs.2,000/- upon the petitioner as per Ext.P3, will not have any other consequence in the matters relating to the terms and conditions of the contract as evidenced by Ext.P3.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

DG/18.8.25

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30555/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED

07.11.2023 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT