M/S.P And C Projects Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 12260 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

 MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 6TH VAISAKHA, 1943

                    WP(C).No.2200 OF 2021(Y)


PETITIONER:

              M/S.P AND C PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,
              P AND C TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR 140,
              PERUNDURAI ROAD, ERODE-638011,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND
              AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
              T.VISWANATHAN.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
              SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
              SRI.RAMEEZ NOOYH
              SMT.MEERA RAMESH
              SMT.BHAIRAVI S.N
              SMT.FATHIMA K.

RESPONDENTS:

     1        STATE OF KERALA,
              REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
              DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
              216, 3RD FLOOR, NORTH SANDWICH BLOCK,
              GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

     2        KERALA STATE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND
              BOARD(KIIFB),
              2ND FLOOR, FELICITY SQUARE, MG ROAD,
              STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
              SHRI.K.M.ABRAHAM.

     3        M/S.INKEL LIMITED,
              DOOR NO.7/473 ZA-5 AND 6, AJIYAL COMPLEX,
              POST OFFICE ROAD,
              KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030.
              REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
              SHRI.A.MOHAN LAL.
 WP(C) No.2200/2021
                             :2 :


              R1 BY SRI.P.NARAYANAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
              R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004)
              R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 26-04-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.2200/2021
                                :3 :




                        JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

Dated this the 26th day of April, 2021

The petitioner, a registered Private Limited Company

which has entered into Ext.P3 Bilateral Agreement and Ext.P6

Supplemental Agreement with the 3 rd respondent, is aggrieved

by the termination of those agreements by the 3 rd respondent.

2. The petitioner states that the petitioner-Company

entered into Ext.P3 agreement with the 3 rd respondent for

construction of the flagship project of "Cochin Cancer

Research Centre, Ernakulam". The project is funded by the

2nd respondent-Kerala State Infrastructural Investment Fund

Board (KIIFB). The 3rd respondent is a Special Purpose

Vehicle (SPV) for the Cochin Cancer Center Project, acting on

behalf of the 1st respondent-State of Kerala.

3. The petitioner was the successful bidder. The work

was awarded for ₹87,14,32,492/- on 13.06.2018. Ext.P3

agreement with the SPV was signed on 06.08.2018. The WP(C) No.2200/2021

work was to be completed within 730 days. The petitioner

started the work on 25.07.2018 and had to complete the work

by 23.07.2020. The unprecedented floods in the years 2018

and 2019 and the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020 caused

hindrance. These coupled with non-payment of pending bills,

labour problems and delay in approval of drawings, made it

impossible to complete the work in time.

4. The petitioner has been communicating to the

respondents regarding delays occurring at various stages of

the work due to unforeseen events as well as for reasons

attributable to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner requested for

extension of time to complete the work. Thereupon, Ext.P6

Supplemental Agreement was executed on 24.09.2020

extending the completion date upto 28.02.2021, though the

petitioner had opposed the time frame.

5. In spite of extension of time, the 3rd respondent did

not release pending bills and showed lethargy in approval of

designs and drawings. The continuing threat of Covid-19

pandemic added to the hardships. In spite of all these, the WP(C) No.2200/2021

petitioner proceeded with the work. However, on 26.12.2020,

the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P8 show-cause notice alleging

that the progress of work is slow. The petitioner submitted

Ext.P9 reply. The petitioner also issued Ext.P10 letter dated

06.01.2021 to the 3rd respondent raising a dispute and

requesting to constitute a Dispute Redressal Committee

invoking Clause No.25 of Ext.P4 General Conditions of

Contract. Without considering the representation of the

petitioner, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P13 on 18.01.2021

terminating Exts.P3 and P6 Agreements. The petitioner

challenges Ext.P13 order of termination.

6. The 3rd respondent contested the writ petition. The

3rd respondent stated that the delay caused is not due to

non-payment of part bills, labour disputes or delay in providing

drawings, etc. The petitioner has been delaying the work from

the very beginning. The agreement provided 10 milestones of

work. It was a condition that if any milestone is not achieved

on the stipulated day, bill amounts will be withheld and paid

only after reaching and completing the subsequent milestone WP(C) No.2200/2021

within the respective time limit.

7. As the petitioner failed to complete the work as

agreed in Ext.P3, Ext.P6 Supplemental Agreement was

signed extending the period up to 28.02.2021, taking into

account Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner cannot rely on

floods for failure to complete work, after signing Ext.P6

Supplemental Agreement. The petitioner was paid ₹4.36

Crores as mobilisation advance. The petitioner did not renew

bank guarantees executed to secure the mobilisation

advance, after 30.11.2020. The petitioner was given secured

advance of ₹2,09,42,271/-. The delay or withholding of

payments is due to non-completion of milestones. An amount

of ₹6,47,049/- was paid to the petitioner towards RAB 06 after

adjusting the amount to be recovered from the petitioner.

RAB 07 is under process.

8. Due to poor progress of work, Ext.P8 show-cause

notice was issued to the petitioner. As per Clause III of the

General Conditions of Contract, the contract can be

terminated if the contractor fails to complete the work or a part WP(C) No.2200/2021

of the work within the respective dates of completion or before

the stipulated or extended dates. The petitioner completed

only 35% of their work. The progress of work was poor. The

quality of the work was also found wanting. Therefore, after

considering the explanation given by the petitioner, the

contract was terminated as per Ext.P13. Ext.P13 cannot be

set aside on all or any of the grounds urged by the petitioner,

contended the 3rd respondent.

9. The 2nd respondent-KIIFB also contested the writ

petition. The 2nd respondent pointed out that the Technical

Inspection Wing of the 2nd respondent conducted a site

inspection and found serious lapses on the part of the

petitioner in the progress of the work as well as in the design

adopted by the petitioner. A project oriented meeting was

convened and in the meeting, the progress of construction

work was reviewed. Specific instructions were given to

explore the possibility of termination of contract due to

continuous non-performance and lethargic attitude of the

petitioner in executing the work.

WP(C) No.2200/2021

10. On 25.11.2019, Porsche slab of the construction

collapsed during concreting. The collapse caused major

structural damage to the existing structure. Workmen were

injured and had to be hospitalised. Preliminary investigation

conducted by the Chief Executive Officer of the 2 nd

respondent noticed that there were serious lapses on the part

of the 3rd respondent and the petitioner. The quality of the

work of the petitioner was found very low. The site was

maintained by the petitioner in a careless manner.

11. The 2nd respondent stated that the project is an

important one for the State of Kerala and if commissioned in

time, it will be a solace to large number of cancer patients in

the State. The respondents are in the process of entrusting

the work to another contractor. If the termination order is

cancelled permitting the petitioner to carry out further work,

the project will not be completed in the near future, contended

the 2nd respondent.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that

Clause 25 of Ext.P4 Conditions of Contract provides for a WP(C) No.2200/2021

multilevel dispute resolution mechanism. In the event of a

dispute, the same has to be raised by the aggrieved party

along with a list of disputes and claims. Though the petitioner

raised a dispute as per Ext.P10, the respondents did not refer

the same to the Disputes Redressal Committee. Issuance of

Ext.P13 termination order when a dispute is raised, is highly

arbitrary and offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

argued that the petitioner had preferred Exts.P11 and P12

representations before the 1st and 2nd respondents. The 1st

respondent being the owner of the project and the 2 nd

respondent being its funding agency, are duty-bound to

consider the petitioner's representations. However, no action

was taken on the representations. The learned counsel for

the petitioner further argued that the petitioner has taken all

efforts to complete the work within the time frame. Delay was

caused due to floods, Covid-19 pandemic, etc. The

respondents have ignored those facts. Respondents 2 and 3

are acting arbitrarily.

WP(C) No.2200/2021

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out

that in issuing Ext.P8 show-cause notice under Clause III of

the Agreement, the 3rd respondent had relied on twelve

documents. However, in Ext.P13 termination order, the 3 rd

respondent took into account an inspection report of the 2 nd

respondent which was not mentioned in Ext.P8. A copy of the

said inspection report was not made available to the

petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that in Sahi Ram v. Avtar Singh and others [(1999) 4 SCC

511], the Ho'ble Apex Court has held that once the documents

relied on by the Government were not put to the party seeking

his explanation, the issue is to be remitted back to the

Government for reconsideration.

15. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in

Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi)

and others [(2014) 9 SCC 105], the Apex Court has held that

the fundamental purpose behind the serving of a show-cause

notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case

against him which he has to meet and a show-cause notice WP(C) No.2200/2021

should contain the material grounds which necessitated an

action. In the case of the petitioner, the show-cause notice is

defective as the inspection report of the 2 nd respondent was

not referred to in the said show-cause notice. Therefore,

termination based on the said show-cause notice is

unsustainable as the notice is defective, contended the

learned counsel for the petitioner.

16. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied

on the judgments of the Apex Court in Union of India and

others v. Tantia Construction Private Limited [(2011)5

SCC 697], Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union

of India and others [(2015) 7 SCC 728] and Unitech Limited

and others v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure

Corporation (TSIIC) and others [2021 SCC OnLine SC 99]

to urge that the writ petition is maintainable since

overwhelming materials available on record would warrant

setting aside of Ext.P13 order.

17. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the

other hand, relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State WP(C) No.2200/2021

of Kerala and others v. M.K. Jose [2015 (9) SCC 433] to

contend that writ jurisdiction cannot be extended to cause a

roving enquiry in a dispute falling within the realm of contract.

The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex

Court in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and others

[AIR 2020 SC 5215] to argue that a breach of procedure

cannot give rise to a remedy in the courts, unless behind it

there is something of substance which has been lost by the

failure. The Court should not act in vain, contended the

learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

18. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Government Pleader for the 1 st respondent, learned Standing

Counsel for the 2nd respondent-KIIFB and learned Standing

Counsel for the 3rd respondent-SPV.

19. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the scope of

interference in contractual matters, under writ jurisdiction. In

Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited v. Board of Trustees

of Kandla Port Trust and others [(2015) 13 SCC 233],

distinguishing between a remedy sought under the Contract WP(C) No.2200/2021

Act, by means of damages for specific performance under the

specified Act and invoking writ jurisdiction, the Apex Court

held that ordinarily, the remedy available for a party

complaining of breach of contract lies for seeking damages.

He would be entitled to the relief of specific performance, if

the contract was capable of being specifically enforced in law.

The remedies for a breach of contract being purely in the

realm of contract are dealt with by civil courts. The public law

remedy, by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution, is not available to seek damages for breach of

contract or specific performance of contract. However, where

the contractual dispute has a public law element, the power of

judicial review under Article 226 may be invoked.

20. In Noble Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa and

another [(2006) 10 SCC 236], while answering whether a writ

petition was maintainable in contractual matters and if so,

what is the scope of jurisdiction of the Court in such matters,

the Apex Court held that "It is trite that if an action on the part

of the State is violative of the equality clause contained in WP(C) No.2200/2021

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a writ petition would be

maintainable even in the contractual field. A distinction

indisputably must be made between a matter which is at the

threshold of a contract and a breach of contract; whereas in

the former the court's scrutiny would be more intrusive, in the

latter the court may not ordinarily exercise its discretionary

jurisdiction of judicial review, unless it is found to be violative

of Article 14 of the Constitution."

21. In the case on hand, the petitioner entered into

Ext.P3 Agreement with the 3rd respondent and commenced

the work on 25.07.2018. Admittedly, as per the terms of the

contract, the work had to be completed within 730 days from

the date of handing over of the project site. In view of the said

provision, the petitioner had to complete the work by

23.07.2020. True, Kerala State witnessed flood situation in

the years 2018 and 2019. The respondents would contend

that the floods have not affected the project area and the

petitioner cannot take umbrage under the floods for failure to

perform his part of the contract. The learned counsel for the WP(C) No.2200/2021

petitioner, on the other hand, would argue that the

unprecedented floods which inundated most part of the State,

created substantial difficulties in mobilising men and material

for execution of the work.

22. But, it may be noted that the respondents

considered the situation and permitted the petitioner to enter

into Ext.P6 Supplemental Agreement on 24.09.2020. By

Ext.P6, the period of completion of work under the principle

agreement was enhanced from 730 days to 949 days. Under

the Supplemental Agreement, the petitioner was bound to

complete the project work by 28.02.2021. The petitioner

could not complete the work by the said date. Therefore, the

petitioner cannot be heard to contend that it was the floods

occurred in the years 2018 and 2019 that prevented the

petitioner from completing the work as per agreement.

23. The petitioner would contend that part bills raised

by the petitioner in respect of completed works were not

honoured by the 3rd respondent, which caused difficulties to

the petitioner in executing the work with required expediency. WP(C) No.2200/2021

The learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent would

point out that there were specific conditions in the agreement

which provided that if any of the stipulated milestone was not

achieved by the prescribed date, the amounts due for that

work will be withheld till the petitioner completes the next

milestone within the date prescribed for the same. When the

petitioner has agreed to such a term of contract, the petitioner

will not be justified in blaming the delay in execution of the

work on non-payment of part-bills raised.

24. The further case of the petitioner is that principles

of natural justice are violated in terminating the contract. The

argument is that the Ext.P8 show-cause notice though

referred to as many as 12 documents in support of

termination, the 3rd respondent relied on, in Ext.P13

termination order, an Inspection Report of the 2 nd respondent

about which the petitioner was not put to notice in Ext.P8

show cause notice, nor was the petitioner was provided with a

copy of that report.

WP(C) No.2200/2021

25. The 3rd respondent has terminated the contract on

two counts, namely slow progress of the work and quality of

work. The fact of extension of time limit for completion of

work and failure to complete the work even in the extended

period is admitted by the petitioner, though the petitioner

would contend that the delay is due to reasons attributable to

the respondents.

26. The inferior quality of work executed by the

petitioner is reflected in Ext.R3(d) letter of undertaking signed

by the petitioner. Therefore, the failure of the 3 rd respondent

to note the inspection report of the 2 nd respondent in Ext.P8

show cause notice by itself cannot be said to have caused

substantial prejudice to the petitioner. The degree of

compliance of the principles of natural justice applicable to

administrative actions of State cannot be made applicable

with the same force, to the 3 rd respondent in a contractual

matter.

27. The further argument of the petitioner is that there

were labour disputes and unwarranted delay on the part of the WP(C) No.2200/2021

3rd respondent in providing drawings which also has

contributed to delay in execution of work within the stipulated

time. These are disputed questions of fact which this Court

cannot adjudicate in writ jurisdiction.

In the result, the writ petition is found to be lacking in

merits and is hence dismissed.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/16.04.2021 WP(C) No.2200/2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER DOCUMENT NO.NIT/INKEL/KIIFB/ 2018-19/010 DATED 05/04/2018 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF COCHIN CANCER RESEARCH CENTRE,ERNAKULAM

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE NO.INKEL/CE/LOA/HEALTH/ 2018/037 DATED 13/06/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETTITIONER

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.O4/KIIFB/INKEL/2018-19 DATED 06/08/2018 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT BETWEEEN THE PARTIES WITH NIT NO.NIT/INKEL/KIIFB/2018-19/010

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.P&C/KLR/CRC-

SITE/INKEL/2020-21/197 DATED 15.09.2020 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES,ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT NO.SA-35/KIIFB/INKEL/2020-21 DATED 24.09.2020 BETWEEN THE PARTIES

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE TIMES OF INDIA NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED ON 19.12.2020 REPORTING THE DISSATISFACTION EXPRESSED BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT AND WORKING OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT WP(C) No.2200/2021

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSED NOTICE NO.INKEL/MD/CCRC/2020-21/1225 DATED 26/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.P&C/KLR/CCRC-SITE/2020-21/235 DTD.04.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P8 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE NO.P&C/CCRC-

SITE/2020-21/236 DATED 06/01/2021 ISSUED BY PETITIONER SEEKING REFERENCE OF DISPUTE TO DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P&C/KLR/CCRC/CRC/KIIFB/2020-21/239 DATED 08/01/2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P&C/KLR/CCRC/CRC/KIIFB/2020-21/237 DATED 08/01/2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION LETTER NO.INKEL/CCRC/2021/5554 DATED 18/01/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AS ON TODAY.

EXHIBIT P15          TRUE     COPY     OF     NOTICE      NO
                     NIT/INKEI/KIIFB/W0W0-21/118         DTD

22.2.2021 ISUEE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME DATED NIL ALONG WITH RELEVANT PAGES OF THE HINDRANCE REGISTER.

WP(C) No.2200/2021

EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO P & C/KLR/CRC-SITE/INKEL/2020-21/230 DATED 18.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO TH EMANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. P& C/KLR/CRC-SITE/INKEL/2020-21/240 DATED 15.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3R DRESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. P & C /KLR/CRC-SITE/INKEL/2020-21/220 DATED 25.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPIES OF OME OF THE REQUEST LETTERS MADE BY THE 3RD RESPONDNET IN DIFFERENT DATED 04.02.2021, 19.01.2021,05.12.2020, 17.10.2020 AND 15.10.2020 TO VARIOUS EXTERNAL LAB AGENCIES FOR CONDUCTING THE REQUIRED TESTS.

EXHIBIT P21          TRUE COPIES OF SOME OF THE LETTERS OF
                     LETTERS     OF     ACCEPATANCE    DATED

31.01.2019,12.02.2018 AND 27.12.2017 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AS PART OF UNDERTAKING OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORK IN THE STATE OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPIES OF SOME OF THE CERTIFICATES OF THE PETITIONERS WORK COMPLETED AHEAD OF THE TIMESHCEDULE ISSUED BY THE PWD, TAMIL NADU DATED 04.11.2015, 16.07.2014 AND 04.08.2015

EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.

INKEL/CCRC/SITE/20/43 DATED 07.11.2020 SNET BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE FILED RECTIFICATION REPORT.

WP(C) No.2200/2021

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R2(a)      A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING
                   NO.G.O.(Rt)No.6/2017/H&FWD           DATED
                   04.01.2017
EXHIBIT R2(b)      A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING
                   NO.APR-37139/2017/KIIFB              DATED
                   08.03.2018
EXHIBIT R2(c)      A TRUE COPY OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT ORDER
                   BEARING        NO.02/INK/CCRC/APRIL/2018
                   DATED 04.04.2018
EXHIBIT R2(d)      A TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES VIDE G.O

(M.S)NO.69/2018/FIN DATED 24.02.2018 EXHIBIT R2(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.INKEL/CE/LOA/HEALTH/2018/037 DATED 13.06.2018 EXHIBIT R2(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR WORK DATED 06.08.2018 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS AN SPV IN FAVOUR THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT R2(g) A TRUE COPY OF THE OBSERVATIONS A MEMO WAS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT POINTING OUT THE LAPSES IN THE WORK VIDE LETTER NO.HFW00L-03-TIW-INSP-01 DATED 23.02.2019 EXHIBIT R2(h) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.IA2/1696/2018/KIIFB DATED 07/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST AND 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R2(i) A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE COLLAPSED PORTION.

EXHIBIT R2(j)      A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
                   THE    TECHNICAL    TEAM    OF   THE   2ND
                   RESPONDENT DATED 27.11.2019.
EXHIBIT R2(k)      A TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION NOTICE
                   DATED 27.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
                   RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2(l)      A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING
                   NO.HFWOOL-03-TIW-INSP-01             DATED
                   19.12.2019
 WP(C) No.2200/2021



EXHIBIT R2(m)        A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION

DATED 27.07.2020 SEND BY THE DIRECTOR CCRC TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R2(n) A TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TECHNICAL TEAM OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT PURUANT TO THE INSPECTION DONE ON 06.11.2020.

EXHIBIT R2(o)        A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
                     DATED        26.12.2020         BEARING
                     NO.INKEL/MD/CCRC/2020-21/1225



EXHIBIT R3(a):       TRUE COPY OF THE 'F' SCHEDULE IN THE
                     ESTIMATED   COST  OF   WORKS  OF   THE

CONSTRUCTION OF COCHIN CANCER RESEARCH CENTRE.

EXHIBIT R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE RA BILL 6 DATED 28/10/2020 AND THE DETAILS REGARDING THE RECOVERY OF MOBILIZATION ADVANCES AND THE RECEIPT FOR MEMORANDUM OF PAYMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28/10/2020.

EXHIBIT R3(c): TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT DETAILS TO THE PETITIONER UPTO DATE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF COCHIN CANCER RESEARCH CENTRE.

EXHIBIT R3(d):       TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF UNDERTAKING
                     DATED   10/03/2020   GIVEN    BY   THE
                     PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT R3(e):       TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   REPORT DATED
                     25/11/2019 SUBMITTED BY GREEN LAB

INDUSTRIAL & ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS (PVT.). LTD., THRIKKAKARA.

EXHIBIT R3(f):       TRUE COPY OF THE     TEST REPORT OF THE
                     SEMI DESTRUCTIVE      CORE TEST ON RC
                     COLUMNS CONDUCTED    BY BUREAU VERITAS,
                     AN NABL ACCREDITED   LAB.
 WP(C) No.2200/2021



EXHIBIT R3(g):       TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   LETTER DATED

25/06/2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE TEST LISTS.

EXHIBIT R3(h):       TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   LETTER  DATED
                     29/11/2018    ISSUED   BY    THE   3RD
                     RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT R3(i):       TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   LETTER  DATED
                     06/12/2018    ISSUED   BY    THE   3RD
                     RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT R3(j):       TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   LETTER  DATED
                     06/03/2019    ISSUED   BY    THE   3RD
                     RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT R3(k):       TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   LETTER  DATED
                     08/04/2019    ISSUED   BY    THE   3RD
                     RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT R3(l):       TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   LETTER  DATED
                     03/05/2019    ISSUED   BY    THE   3RD
                     RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT R3(m):       TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   LETTER  DATED
                     20/06/2019    ISSUED   BY    THE   3RD
                     RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT R3(n):       TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   LETTER  DATED
                     02/07/2019    ISSUED   BY    THE   3RD
                     RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT R3(o):       TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   LETTER  DATED
                     22/07/2019    ISSUED   BY    THE   3RD
                     RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT R3(p):       TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   LETTER  DATED
                     05/08/2019    ISSUED   BY    THE   3RD
                     RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT R3(q):       TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   LETTER  DATED
                     22/11/2019    ISSUED   BY    THE   3RD
                     RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
 WP(C) No.2200/2021



EXHIBIT R3(r):       TRUE   COPY   OF    THE   LETTER    DATED
                     23/07/2019    ISSUED     BY    THE    3RD
                     RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R3(s):       TRUE COPY OF THE HINDRANCE REGISTER
                     KEPT AT THE SITE BY THE M/S. INKEL
                     LIMITED
EXHIBIT R3(t):       TRUE   COPY   OF    THE   LETTER    DATED
                     27.11.2020    ISSUED     BY    THE    3RD
                     RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT R3(u):       TRUE   COPY   OF    THE   LETTER    DATED
                     10.02.2021    ISSUED     BY    THE    3RD
                     RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R3(v):       TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF EQUIPMENTS
                     FOR   TESTING    OF      MATERIALS    AND

CONCRETES AT SITE LABORATORY PREPARED THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R3(w):       TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF PAYMENT
                     OF RA BILL 02 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
                     RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT R3(x):       TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
                     SPECIAL   CONDITIONS    AND    ADDITIONAL

CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT WHICH STATES ABOUT THE ESTABLISHEMENT OF A SITE LABORATORY EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R3(x)(1): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT WHICH STATES ABOUT THE TESTING EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R3(Y): TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF ONE OF THE REVIEW MEETING DATED 1.4.2019 HELD BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R3(Z): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.11.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

SR