Contractual disputes involving the imposition of fines for delayed work performance under a commercial agreement cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction as they involve complex questions of fact requiring evidentiary appraisal.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a PWD contractor and this writ petition is submitted by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P7 order by the 2^nd respondent, by which a fine of Rs.3,86,667/- was imposed upon the petitioner for extending the time for completing the work. According to the petitioner, the delay in completing the work was in view of the fact that the petitioner was asked to do certain additional works and that caused the delay. 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been submitted by the

2^nd respondent, in response to the averments contained in the writ petition. In paragraph 5 it is averred as follows:

“5. It is submitted that, as per the Agreement No.

I19/SECCA/2020-21 dated 31.03.2022, site for the work “Budget Work 2020-21- Improvements with Thoppumpady Junction providing hand rails, drainage and footpath was handed over to the petitioner with a Time of Completion of 6 months from the date of handing over of the site to the petitioner on 07.04.2022. Whereas, the petitioner has not completed the work in the stipulated time. Based on the request of the petitioner, time of completion of the work was extended by this respondent up to 05.01.2023 without imposing fine. Further 3 more time extensions were granted up to 31.03.2024 without fine as the reason for the delay in completion of the work was not the default of the petitioner. Even after, extensions were granted to the petitioner since he could not complete the work within the extended time and again sought for time for completion and extension was granted up to 31.05.2024. Whereas, during the period of 5^th extension of time of completion (31.03.2024 to 31.05.2024), the petitioner has not executed any work at the site. Number of communications were served to the petitioner from the Assistant Engineer wherein it was directed to complete the work within the extended time of completion. It is submitted that, no hindrance were reported by the field officers in relation to the work “Budget Work 2020-21- Improvements with Thoppumpady Junction by providing hand rails, drainage and footpath work”. Things being so, the petitioner again requested for extension of time of completion up to 21.09.2024 without fine as the heavy traffic was reason for the delay in completion of the work. Hence, this respondent has extended the time of completion extended up to 21.09.2024 with fine of Rs. 3,86,667/- vide DEE- RD/2019/6067 dated 31.07.2024 since the facts explained by the contractor are not genuine (Exhibit P7).”

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. It is evident from the statement submitted by the 2^nd respondent that, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 31.03.2022, the work ought to have been completed within a period of six months. It is discernible that, on four occasions the time was extended on the applications submitted by the petitioner without any fine. Later, during the time of fifth extension, if was found that the petitioner did not execute any work at the site. Even though repeated communications were served to the petitioner directing the petitioner to complete the work, nothing was done. It is also specifically averred that, the field officers have reported no hindrance to the said work. Later, the petitioner had again requested for extension of time for completion of work up to 21.09.2024 without fine as according to him, due to heavy traffic the work could not be completed. This was considered and Ext.P7 order was passed, imposing a fine.

5. As far as the challenge raised by the petitioner against the imposition of fine is concerned, the same cannot be a subject matter in a writ petition as the fine was imposed based on the terms and condi