The case illustrates the judicial approach to disputes over contractual obligations, focusing on timely performance and communication between parties.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a Contractor who has executed an agreement with the 1st respondent for effecting improvements to Vattappara - Thovala- Kattadikavala - Erattayar Road at kilometer 2/450 to 3/300. Ext.P3 is a copy of the selection notice. It is submitted that various formalities have been completed by the petitioner. Ext.P4 contains the rate of progress of work. Going by the same, 25% of the work would be executed within two months whereas the total period contemplated for the completion of work was nine months and within four and six months, the petitioner would have completed 60% and 80% of the works respectively. The petitioner's prayer is to relieve him from the contract work by closing the agreement and release the security deposit of Rs.1 lakh and performance guarantee of Rs.12,45,957/-. For this the petitioner has approached the Superintending Engineer by filing Ext.P9 representation.

According to the petitioner, there is delay on part of the respondents in handing over the site after recording the initial levels and therefore, the petitioner could not commence the work.

2. In the statement filed by the 3rd respondent, the allegations have been denied. It is stated therein that the site was handed over to the petitioner on 14.03.2012. Annexure R3(a) is produced in support of the above plea. It is also stated that as the site was handed over, the petitioner commenced the construction work and after the commencement of the work, it was noticed that the progress of the work was very low compared to the time schedule fixed as per the contract. The departmental officials were ready to take the initial levels of the work and several times the Assistant Engineer, PWD, Roads section informed the petitioner in person, over the phone and in writing to be present at the site for taking initial levels. But the Contractor doesn't turn out to the above direction. It is stated in paragraph 5 that the petitioner is now attempting to evade from executing the work on the fear that there would be heavy loss to him since the rate quoted by him was 37.30% below the estimate rate.

3. Various other factors have also been pointed out in the statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contentions raised by the 3rd respondent are not correct. Learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner's attempt is not bonafide and the same will be evidenced by the facts stated in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the statement I am not going into the merits of the matter since what is sought for is a direction to the 1st respondent to consider all aspects. Appropriate decision will be taken by the 1st respondent which will be duly communicated to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment as it is submitted that the work is of an urgent nature.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp