JUDGMENT

2. Short facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal are as follows: The appellant was awarded with a contract work for effecting improvements to the road from Vattappayithara T emple to Thuruthichira Road and for the construction of single cell box culvert at Ward No.8 of Ambalappuzha North Panchayat by the third respondent/the Superintending Engineer, PWD (Roads and Bridges), Thiruvananthapuram.

3. According to the appellant, during the course of execution of the said work, appellant submitted Ext.P3 representation before the respondents 2 and 3/Chief Engineer and Superintending Engineer respectively to supply bitumen departmentally, and in pursuance to Ext.P4 judgment dated 17.6.19 in W.P . (C)No.16359/20, the second respondent issued Ext.P5 order, declining the said request of the appellant.

4. Later, the third respondent issued Ext.P6, directing the appellant to complete the balance work. Immediately on receipt of Ext.P6, appellant submitted Ext.P7 to the third respondent, extending his willingness to complete the balance work. Ext.P7 was sent through registered post. However, without even referring to Ext.P7, the 3 rd respondent issued Ext.P8 order, terminating the balance work at the risk and cost of the appellant. Thereafter the appellant submitted Ext.P9 representation before the 3 rd respondent and Ext.P9(a) representation before the 2 nd respondent, requesting to permit the appellant to complete the balance work.

5. In the above circumstances, appellant has approached this court with W.P .(C)No.21913 of 2020 with a prayer to direct the respondents to permit him to complete the balance work. However, in the meanwhile third respondent issued Ext.P10 re-tender notification for awarding the balance work involved in Ext.P8 order. As per the order dated 16.10.2020 the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.25 lakhs, as a pre condition for staying the operation of Ext.P10, without examining the contention of the appellant that the Ext.P8 order was issued, in violation of the principles of natural justice, without even referring to Ext.P7. Hence the appeal.

6. Apart from reiterating the above and assailing the correctness of the interim order, Mr.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for the remaining work, to construct culvert, as per the agreement, respondents have to provide bitumen concrete. Culvert to be constructed is under the control of the Central Government. For the purpose of constructing a culvert in the national canal, it is necessary to get the necessary permission from the Central Government. But according to the appellant, no permission has been obtained by the respondents from the Central Government. Therefore, the only remaining work to be executed by the appellant is bituminous work worth about Rs.20 lakhs. It is relevant to be noted that an amount of Rs.8.5 lakhs is due to the appellant from the respondents, in connection with the work satisfactorily executed by him.

7. Heard Sri.K.V.Manoj Kumar, Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

8. Interim order in W.P .(C)No.21913/2020 dated 16.10.2020, impugned in this appeal reads thus: “The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would complete the work within a period of one month.

Therefore there shall be a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to restart and complete the work within a period of one month from today, provided that petitioner would furnish a Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees T wenty Five Lakhs only), before the competent among respondents 3 and 4 within a period of one week. Therefore further proceedings based on Ext.P10 in W.P .(C)No.21913/2020 shall be kept in abeayance to the extent it relates to Sl.No.134, for a period of one month.

Post on