Kerala High Court
M/S.Ajit Associates ... vs State Of Kerala on 26 April, 2021
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.23006 OF 2019(A)
PETITIONER:
M/s.AJIT ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURAL
CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR,
PUTHOORAN PLAZA, KPCC JUNCTION,
M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -682011,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR.(AR.) B.R. AJIT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SMT.ANJALY N.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PORTS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 DIRECTOR OF PORTS,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, VELIYATHURA,
VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008.
3 THE KERALA MARITIME SOCIETY,
NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM-691582,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER.
4 M/S. SOUTH INDIAN CONSTRUCTIONS,
VAVVAKKAVU P.O., KOLLAM-690528.
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
:2 :
ADDL. 5 KERALA MARITIME BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
VALIYATHURA, VALLAKADAVU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695008
ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
10.10.2019 IN IA No.1/2019.
R4 BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
R4 BY ADV. SMT.A.V.INDIRA
R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)
R4 BY ADV. SMT. JANE MARIA TOMY
R4 BY ADV. SMT.UTHARA A.S
R4 BY ADV. SMT.KARISHMA JOJO
R4 BY ADV. SHRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT
R4 BY ADV. SMT.GAYATHRI V NAIR
R4 BY ADV. SMT.LIYA ELZA ALEX
R4 BY ADV. SRI.D.JAYAKRISHNAN
R5 BY ADV. K.P.SUDHEER
R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
R6 BY ADV. SHRI.HARISANKAR R
R6 BY ADV. SHRI.SREERAJ M.D.
R1-2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.V MANOJ KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 26-04-2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).15489/2020(I), THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
:3 :
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.15489 OF 2020(I)
PETITIONER:
SOUTH INDIAN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,
VAVVAKKAVU P.O.,
KARUNAGAPALLY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR.R. VINOD KUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O. RAGHAVAN,
RESIDING AT KOCHUPARAYATTU,
VAVVAKKAVU, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
SMT.A.V.INDIRA
SHRI.ANANDA PADMANABHAN
SMT.LIYA ELZA ALEX
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PORTS,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF PORTS,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002.
3 THE KERALA MARITIME BOARD,
VALIYATHURA, VALAKAKADAVU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 008,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
:4 :
4 M/S. AJITH ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS PVT.LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR,
PUTHOORAN PLAZA, KPCC JUNCTION,
M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. AJIT.
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR
R4 BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
R4 BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
R4 BY ADV. SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
R4 BY ADV. SMT.VAISAKHI V.
R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 26-04-2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).23006/2019(A), THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
:5 :
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 26th day of April, 2021
The petitioner in WP(C) No.23006 of 2019 is a
Company engaged in the activities of Architects, Designers
and as Project Managers and Supervisors of such activities.
The petitioner seeks to direct respondents 1 to 3 not to
release any more amounts to the 4 th respondent without
considering the points of objections raised by the petitioner in
Exts.P6 to P9. The 4th respondent in WP(C) No.23006/2019,
is the petitioner in WP(C) No.15489 of 2020. In W.P.(C)
No.15489 of 2020, the 4th respondent-petitioner seeks to
command respondents 1 to 3 to release `2,72,98,311/-
illegally withheld from him along with interest at the rate of
18% per annum from various bills of effecting deductions, with
future interest.
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
2. As both these writ petitions relate to one contract
work and to payments pursuant to the contract, they are heard
together and being disposed of by a common judgment. The
parties in these writ petitions are referred to in this judgment,
as they are arrayed in WP(C) No.23006/2019.
3. The Government of Kerala approved the
appointment of petitioner as an Architect for construction of
the campuses of the 3rd respondent-Kerala Maritime Institute
at Neendakara. The petitioner entered into an agreement
dated 03.07.2010 with the 3 rd respondent. The petitioner
would contend that for construction of a library with ground
plus one floor and an academic block with a ground +2 floors,
only shallow foundation/footing design was necessary.
However, the 4th respondent insisted for a pile foundation.
According to the petitioner, actually the piling drawings were
meant only for the hostel block which was of 8 floors.
4. The petitioner would state that when the bills
submitted by the 4th respondent was scrutinised and
examined, it was noticed that the amounts already paid were
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
in excess by `2.9 Crore. Noticing this excess payment by
respondents 2 and 3 to the 4 th respondent-contractor and also
noticing certain anomalies, the petitioner sent a letter dated
09.02.2019 to the 2nd and 3rd respondents requesting to
withhold further payments to the 4th respondent. According to
the petitioner, a sum of `9.906 Crores was to be recovered
from the 4th respondent under various heads.
5. In spite of the objections of the petitioner the
officials attached to the office of the 2 nd and 3rd respondents
continued to insist for payment of undeserving amount to the
4th respondent-contractor. A meeting in the presence of the
Minister for Sports was held on 02.08.2019. The Managing
Director of the petitioner was laid up and could not attend the
meeting. In the meeting, certain unfounded allegations were
raised against the petitioner. The petitioner sent a letter dated
03.08.2019 to the Minister for Sports, pointing out corruption
in the matter of payment of amounts to the 4 th respondent-
contractor. However, respondents 1 to 3 are trying to close
the contract with the 4 th respondent, discharging the 4 th
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
respondent from further contractual liability and to pay him
further amount without effecting recovery of excess amount
already paid. In the circumstances, the petitioner seeks to
direct respondents 1 to 3 to realise the excess amount paid to
the 4th respondent in violation of the advice and instructions
given by the petitioner in Exts.P6 to P9.
6. In the writ petition filed by the 4th respondent, the 4th
respondent stated that the 4 th respondent participated in the
tender for construction floated by the Director of Ports, the 2 nd
respondent, and as the bid of the 4 th respondent being lowest,
the tender was awarded to the 4 th respondent. The petitioner
was appointed as the Project Management Consultant of the
Project. The petitioner being the Consultant, had prepared
the bid document and specifications for construction of
Institute buildings. The petitioner issued drawings and the 4 th
respondent commenced construction accordingly.
7. The petitioner-Consultant had issued pile
foundation drawings for all the structures initially, but it was
changed to shallow foundation for two main structures during
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
May, 2013. When the petitioner supplied pile foundation
drawings, the petitioner prescribed that piling need to be done
only up to a depth of 22 m. The petitioner made such
prescription after conducting a soil test through M/s.LAN-Dec
Engineers, Cochin, its soil testing agency. When the 4th
respondent proceeded with piling work, they could not find
any hard strata even after 22 m. They were instructed to
further deepen the pile and they could not find hard strata
even at a depth of 50 m. This was confirmed by another soil
testing agency "CGL-GEO INFOMATICS".
8. Thereafter, the petitioner changed their pile
foundation drawings in respect of two main structures within
two months and prescribed isolated footing foundation. The
4th respondent had completed works amounting to `33.3
Crores. An amount of `3.3 Crores was withheld as retention
money. Another `2.73 Crores was withheld without any
reason. The 4th respondent submitted a letter dated
24.11.2016 seeking to release the said amount. The 2 nd
respondent Port Director also requested the Government to
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
release the payment to the 4th respondent as per Ext.P3 dated
30.11.2016. The 4th respondent made a series of
communications / representations to respondents 1 and 2.
9. The Director of Ports wrote Ext.P5 letter to the
Secretary to Government pointing out that the bill due to the
4th respondent is pending with the petitioner-consultant and
the petitioner has not recommended payment because the
Department has not paid consultancy fee to the petitioner.
The petitioner recommended payment of 22 nd RA Bill of the
petitioner for `1,45,25,983/- with statutory recovery of
`21,78,998/-, but at the same time petitioner also
recommended recovery of `9.688 Crore from 4th respondent.
The Director of Ports stated that on examination of
recommendation of the petitioner, it was noted that the
recoveries from the 4th respondent were proposed in a
revenging manner.
10. The 4th respondent stated that more than 90% of
works have been completed by them before October, 2018
and work could not be further proceeded with due to non-
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
co-operation of the petitioner. Therefore, it would be only just
and proper to release the retention amount to the 4 th
respondent as the work has reached a halt for the last two
years for no fault of the 4th respondent.
11. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Kerala
Maritime Board was impleaded as additional 5 th respondent,
since due to Sections 10 and 11 of the Kerala Maritime Board
Act, 2017, the assets and functions of the 3 rd respondent-
Kerala Maritime Society was vested with the Kerala Maritime
Board. As per the direction of this Court, the petitioner sought
to implead the Training Coordinator of the Kerala Maritime
Institute as additional 6th respondent.
12. The Chief Executive Officer of the 5 th respondent-
Kerala Maritime Board filed a counter affidavit in WP(C)
No.15489/2020. The 5th respondent stated that the petitioner
is expected to carry out joint measurement along with the
contractor's engineer and to verify and certify measurements
before recommending bills submitted by the 4th respondent-
contractor. Now the Director of Ports is disabled to take
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
measurement of the work carried out with respect to RAB-22
due to non-co-operation of the petitioner. The Director of
Ports is unable to terminate the agreement between the
petitioner and the Kerala Maritime Society due to the
pendency of WP(C) No.23006/2019. The 5 th respondent
stated that there are sufficient reasons to terminate the
agreement with the petitioner, due to inadequacy of service by
the petitioner with regard to timely completion of
designs/drawing/other documents enabling smooth and timely
completion of the project and quality supervision over the
work.
13. The 5th respondent stated that as per the total value
of work approved by the petitioner in respect of running
account bills RAB-6 to RAB-13, the amount payable to the 4 th
respondent after statutory deductions comes to
`2,72,98,311/-. This amount is not paid due to lack of
authorisation from the Government. The Director of Ports has
retained 10% of the amount towards retention money as per
the agreement conditions. The retention money thus withheld
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
amounts to `3,29,65,792/- and it can be paid only along with
the final bill. The petitioner has breached the condition as to
providing architectural services and they stopped their service
from 22.12.2018 onwards by withdrawing their site engineer.
14. The 5th respondent stated that the 4th respondent
contractor has executed work in excess of the scheduled
quantity. Such excess work was necessitated as a result of
violation of conditions of agreement by the petitioner whereby
the petitioner has made deviation, alteration, addition to the
approved drawings without the knowledge and prior written
consent of the Society. The structural changes made by the
petitioner were not brought to the notice of the 3 rd respondent
for approval. The petitioner did not submit revised estimates
with deviation statements for approval.
15. The 5th respondent stated that the construction
work was stalled during the implementation of the project due
to inconsistency of issued working drawings and the drawings
submitted by the petitioner after the new soil testing report.
The non-cooperation of the petitioner after receiving 70% of
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
consultancy fee forced the 3 rd respondent to deduct the extra
amount of expenditure incurred for soil testing. The petitioner
also raised a new claim for consultation fee, contended the 5 th
respondent.
16. The additional 6th respondent in WP(C)
No.23006/2019 filed a detailed counter affidavit. The
additional 6th respondent stated that the following clauses
described in paragraphs (a) to (e) of the said agreement were
breached by petitioner:
"(a) As per clause 1.01 of the Agreement,
Architect shall provide services pertaining to the
plan, design, estimate preparation and
supervision of the said project. Clause 1.06
and 1.07 says that after the written approval of
the sketch of the architect shall prepare the
detailed drawings along with schedules of
specifications and schedule of quantities. The
Architect shall also furnish detailed estimate on
the specification and schedule of rate adopted
by the State PWD in the region.
(b) Clause 1.11 stipulates that the
Architect shall prepare and submit complete
working drawings and details sufficient to
commence the work at the site for the proper
execution during the construction.
(c) Clause 1.12 states that the Consultant
shall visit the site of work as and when
necessary to clarify any decision or
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
interpretation of the drawings and
specifications. They shall attend conferences
and meetings as and when required till the
completion of the project.
(d) Clause 1.13 insists that the Architect
shall not make any deviation, alteration,
addition to or omission to the approved
drawings without the knowledge and prior
written consent of the Society, the Society
reserves the right to omit or postpone any
works or part thereof at its discretion.
(e) As per clause 2.01, the Architect shall
submit to the Society all the necessary sketch
plans/designs, draft tender documents with in
the period stipulated by the society. They shall
carry of the works in all respects as required by
the society and within the stipulated time. Time
shall be construed as the essence of the
agreement."
The above clauses described in paragraphs (a) to (e) are
1.01, 1.02, 1.11, 1.12 & 2.01 of the agreement dated
03.07.2010 which are violated by the petitioner. These
breaches were duly reported to the Government under letter
No.C2-289/2011/DP(1) dt.28/05/2019 by Director of Ports and
Special Officer of Kerala Maritime Society (2 nd & 3rd
respondent), contended the additional 6th respondent.
17. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
and 2, the counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent, the
Standing Counsel appearing for the additional 5 th respondent
and the counsel appearing for the additional 6 th respondent.
18. From the pleadings, it is evident that the
Government of Kerala accepted the tender for the
construction of Kerala Maritime Institute at Neendakara as per
G.O. dated 07.01.2013. As per the Scheme, 11 components
were included for construction, which are as follows:
"1. Library Block
2. Hostel Block
3. Canteen Block
4. Academic Block
5. Electrical Room and Substation
6. Auditorium
7. Security Cabin
8. Swimming Pool
9. Road and Drain
10. Compound wall and Parade Ground
11. UG sump, Pump House STP"
The petitioner was the Project Management Consultant (PMC)
and the 4th respondent was the Contractor with whom the 3 rd
respondent-Kerala Maritime Society entered into agreements.
19. According to the petitioner, a Library with Ground
+1 Floor and an Academic Block with Ground +2 Floors were
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
proposed to be constructed in non-mining areas, but in fact
mining activities were going on at the sites. After careful
study, the petitioner found that only shallow foundation/
footing design is required, which would also reduce cost and
hence petitioner proposed shallow foundations. According to
the petitioner, the 4th respondent and the additional 6 th
respondent did not accept the proposal. The mining activity
was at the instance of the additional 6 th respondent and was
intended to give piling work to the 4 th respondent as it was
more gainful for the latter. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6
letter dated 05.04.2016 to the 3 rd respondent pointing out the
facts. When Running Bills RAB 1 to RAB 22 of the 4 th
respondent were examined it was found that the 4 th
respondent already received excess amounts. Hence Ext.P7
letter dated 09.02.2019 was sent to respondents 2 and 3
pointing out that `9.906 Crores was to be recovered from the
4th respondent. The petitioner has further alleged that the 4 th
respondent did not start the construction part of auditorium
but started work at a non-excavation area, which resulted in
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
additional cost. Therefore the intention of the 4 th respondent
is malafide and the bills cannot be settled without deducting
undue excess amount paid to the 4th respondent.
20. But, the pleadings would reveal that when initially
tenders were issued shallow foundation alone was mentioned,
but after the Government handed over the area for mining
work, an addendum notification was issued including in it
piling work. Exts.R4(d) and Ext. R4(e) pile foundation
drawings were issued by the petitioner itself, to the 4 th
respondent. The drawings were prepared based on a soil
investigation report prepared by M/s.LAN-Dec Engineers,
Cochin, an agency arranged by the petitioner. On the basis of
the said report, piling work was suggested and that too only
up to 24m depth. The 4th respondent could not find hard
strata at 24m depth. The petitioner was required to continue
with piling and hard strata could be touched only at a depth of
58-60 m. The petitioner again engaged another soil testing
agency M/s.CGL-GEO Infomatics who confirmed the hard
strata only at that depth. The piling at a depth of 58-60m
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
caused additional expenditure not originally provided for. This
extra cost was as a result of the petitioner engaging a sub
standard agency for soil testing. Thereafter, the pile
foundation drawings in respect of two main structures were
changed to that of the isolated footing foundation.
21. It has been revealed that the first soil test result by
M/s.LAN-Dec, Cochin was received on 08.08.2012. The
petitioner issued pile foundation drawing of 18-21 m for
Library block on 06.03.2013. The piling work was stopped on
20.03.2013 as the 4th respondent could not find hard strata
even at a depth of 50m. A notice was issued to the petitioner
in this regard on 21.03.2013. The Structural Engineer of the
petitioner who visited the site on 21.03.2013 admitted that the
soil test report is incorrect. On 01.04.2013, the petitioner
issued Ext.R6(Q) letter requiring detailed soil investigation.
These facts would show that the initial soil investigation
conducted at the instance of the petitioner was faulty and the
fault has resulted in substantial delay in work and extra costs.
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
22. Another allegation of the petitioner is that the 4 th
respondent did not start construction work of the auditorium.
The 4th respondent has stated that the petitioner has so far
not handed over drawing of auditorium to the petitioner.
Furthermore, in the special meeting on the construction,
convened on 25.06.2014 by the Director of Ports, it was
decided to keep in abeyance the construction of the
auditorium and compound wall. This is evident from Ext.R4(b)
minutes. Therefore, the petitioner cannot blame the delay on
the 4th respondent.
23. The prayer of the petitioner is not to make any
more payments to the 4 th respondent without considering the
objections of the petitioner. As discussed and found herein
above, the delay in construction and escalation of cost of
construction is not attributable to the 4 th respondent. As
regards alleged excess payment made to the 4 th respondent,
the Director of Ports has considered the issue in detail in
Ext.P5 and observed that the petitioner has suggested to
recover amounts from the 4 th respondent in a revengeful
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
manner, for not getting paid their consultancy fee. In the facts
of the case, this Court finds no reason to disregard or
disbelieve the conclusions of the Director of Ports contained
in Ext.P5. WP(C) No.23006/2019 filed by the petitioner is
therefore liable to be dismissed.
24. As regards the prayers of the petitioner in WP(C)
No.15489/2020 to release the amounts due to him under the
contract, the 3rd respondent in their counter affidavit in WP(C)
No.15489/2020, has stated that the Director of Ports is totally
unable to make the measurements of the work carried out by
the 4th respondent without the service of the petitioner since
the petitioner is expected to carry out joint measurement
along with the Engineer of the 4 th respondent to verify and
certify such measurements before recommending the bills
submitted by the 4th respondent for payment. Due to the
pendency of WP(C) No.23006/2019, the Director of Ports is
unable to terminate the agreement with the petitioner. It is not
in dispute that the petitioner has denied their service from
22.12.2018, by withdrawing their Site Engineer. In the
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
circumstances, necessary orders need to be passed directing
respondents 1 to 3 in WP(C) No.15489/2020 to take effect
steps to release amounts due to the petitioner.
25. For the reasons stated above, WP(C)
No.23006/2019 is dismissed and W.P.(C) No.15489/2020 is
disposed of with the following directions:-
There will be a direction to respondents 1 to 3 in
WP(C) No.15489/2020 to release the amounts withheld from
and any other amounts due to the petitioner in WP(C)
No.15489/2020, within a period of two months. The claim and
question of interest made in WP(C) No.15489/2020, are left
open.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/16.04.2021
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23006/2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ZONING
PLAN, IDENTIFYING THE MINING AND NON-
MINING ZONES, SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER IN EARLY FEBRUARY 2013.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING HELD ON 14/02/2013.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
15/02/2013 ALONG WITH THE NEW ZONING
PLAN, IDENTIFYING THE MINING AND NON-
MINING ZONES, SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
19/06/2013 ISSUED BY THE HEAD OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF THE PETITIONER TO THE
DIRECTOR OF PORTS.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
19/06/2013 PASSED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT CONTRACTOR TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
05/04/2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
09/02/2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
29/06/2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
03/08/2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR PORTS,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST ZONING PLAN.
EXHIBIT R4(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING DATED 25.6.2014.
EXHIBIT R4(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING DATED 27.4.2016.
EXHIBIT R4(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE PILE FOUNDATION
DRAWING NO.ST-WD-EDB-108-03-001
(ACADEMIC BLOCK) DATED 25.2.2013.
EXHIBIT R4(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE PILE FOUNDATION
DRAWING NO.ST-WD-EDB-108-05-001
(LIBRARY BLOCK) DATED 6.2.2013.
EXHIBIT R4(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING HELD ON 27.4.2016.
EXHIBIT R4(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
28.4.2017.
EXHIBIT R4(H) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF
ADDENDUM CONTAINING THE DESCRIPTION OF
ITEMS IN FULL.
EXHIBIT R4(I) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C2-
289/2011 DATED 22.2.2019.
EXHIBIT R4(J) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE
RESPONDENT BASED ON THE QUERY RAISED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.2.2019.
EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.20/2019
DATED 2.5.2019 ISSUED BY FISHERIES AND
PORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT R6-A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C2-
289/2014/DP DATED 12.7.2016.
EXHIBIT R6-B TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
3.7.2010.
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
EXHIBIT R6-C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C2-
289/2011/DP(1), DATED 28.5.2019.
EXHIBIT R6-D TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING
DATED 27.4.2016.
EXHIBIT R6-E TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.C2-
4327/2011 DATED 28.9.2012.
EXHIBIT R6-F TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER FOR
MINING DATED 30.5.2012.
EXHIBIT R6-G TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST MINING PLAN
DATED 20.6.2012.
EXHIBIT R6-H TRUE COPY OF REVISED MINING PLAN.
EXHIBIT R6-I TRUE COPY E-MAIL DATED 28.6.2012.
EXHIBIT R6-J TRUE COPY OF E-MAIL DATED 13.6.2012.
EXHIBIT R6-K TRUE COPY OF THE PILE FOUNDATION
DRAWING FOR MULTI-STOREY ACADEMIC
BLOCK DATED 25.2.2013.
EXHIBIT R6-L TRUE COPY OF THE PILE FOUNDATION FOR
SINGLE-STOREY LIBRARY BLOCK DRAWING
DATED 4.3.2013.
EXHIBIT R6-M TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION LETTER
OF THE PETITIONER DATED 13.12.2010.
EXHIBIT R6-N TRUE COPY OF THE CORRESPONDENCE VIA E-
MAIL DATED 8.8.2012.
EXHIBIT R6-O TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.3.2013 TO
THE PETITIONER FROM THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6-P TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE
PETITIONER'S STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO
THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6-Q TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION LETTER
BY THE PETITIONER DATED 1.4.2013.
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
EXHIBIT R6-R TRUE COPY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION.
EXHIBIT R6-S TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
30.6.2015.
EXHIBIT R6-T TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF
RECOVERY DATED 28.4.2016.
EXHIBIT R6-U TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING
DATED 27.4.2016.
EXHIBIT R6-V TRUE COPY OF THE ADDENDUM DESCRIPTION
ATTACHED AND SENT BY THE PETITIONER BY
E-MAIL DATED 20.7.2012.
EXHIBIT R6-W TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
7.1.2014.
EXHIBIT R6-X TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL DATED
31.12.2012.
EXHIBIT R6-Y TRUE COPY OF THE (ANALYSIS & BRIEF
NOTE) LETTER DATED 28.2.2019.
EXHIBIT R6-Z TRUE COPY OF THE (DETAILED NOTE)
LETTER DATED 28.5.2019.
EXHIBIT R6-AA TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C2-
289/2011/DP BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.7.2018.
EXHIBIT R6-AB TRUE COPY OF THE CMC PROCEEDINGS DATED
11.7.2013.
EXHIBIT R6-AC TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTICES DATED
19.12.2018.
EXHIBIT R6-AD TRUE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER DATED
22.3.2018 TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH
REMARKS DATED 22.11.2017.
EXHIBIT R6-AE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTED DATED
5.5.2018.
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15489/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF AN AGREEMENT DATED
18.02.2013 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT NO.2
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
35/SIC/11/16 DATED 24.11.2016
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
C2/289/2011/DP DATED 30.11.2016 ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1. DIRECTOR OF
PORTS TO THE RESPONDENT. NO. 2.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
AND 2 BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 (A) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
AND 2 BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 (B) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
11.4.2018 SENT TO RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND
2 BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 (C) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
AND 2 BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 (D) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
AND 2 BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 (E) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
AND 2 BY THE PETITIONER.
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
EXHIBIT P4 (F) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
AND 2 BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 (G) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
AND 2 BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C2-
289/2011 DATED 28.02.2019 ISSUED BY
THE DIRECTOR OF PORTS TO THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING CONDUCTED UNDER THE
CHAIRMANSHIP OF MINISTER OF PORTS AND
02.08.2019.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
MALAYALAM MANORAMA DAILY.
EXHIBIT R4(b): A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ZONING
PLAN, IDENTIFYING THE MINING AND NON-
MINING ZONES, SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT IN EARLY FEBRUARY 2013.
EXHIBIT R4(c): TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING HELD ON 14/02/2013.
EXHIBIT R4(d): A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
15/02/2013 ALONG WITH THE NEW ZONING
PLAN, IDENTIFYING THE MINING AND NON-
MINING ZONES, SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R4(e): A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
19/06/2013 ISSUED BY THE HEAD OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO
THE DIRECTOR OF PORTS.
EXHIBIT R4(f): A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
19/06/2013 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER
CONTRACTOR TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
WP(C) Nos.23006/2019 &15489/2020
EXHIBIT R4(g): A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
05/04/2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
SR
