Kerala High Court
N.J.Thomas And Co vs The Principal on 1 February, 2021
WP(C).No.23073 OF 2020(H)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.23073 OF 2020(H)
PETITIONER/S:
N.J.THOMAS AND CO.
MATTEETHARA COLONY, Y.W.C.A. LANE, BAKER JUNCTION,
KOTTAYAM-686 001, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING
PARTNER, SIBY THOMAS.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.L.VARGHESE (SR.)
SMT.SANTHA VARGHESE
SRI.RAHUL VARGHESE
SRI.RANJITH VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE PRINCIPAL,
GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, THRISSUR-680 596.
2 THE HLL LIFECARE LIMITED
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, HLL BHAVAN,
GOLDEN JUBILEE BLOCK, POOJAPPURA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012.
3 THE ENGINEER-IN-CHARGE
PROJECT ENGINEER (CIVIL), INFRATECH SERVICE LTD.,
GOLDEN JUBILEE BLOCK, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012.
4 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.
SECRETARIAT BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
R1, R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
R2-3 BY ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
R2-3 BY ADV. KUM.T.S.ATHIRA
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR, SRGP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-
01-2021, THE COURT ON 01-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
P.V.ASHA, J.
---------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
----------------------------------
Dated this the 01st day of February, 2021
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was awarded the work of "Setting up of
emergency and critical care department at Govt.Medical
College, Thrissur -Construction of Triage Building" as per
Ext.P1 letter of acceptance issued by the 2nd respondent on
24.10.2014. The contract value was Rs.5,47,55,590/- . It is
a deposit work. 2nd respondent, is the consultancy appointed
by the 1st respondent. The 1st and 2nd respondent have
entered into an agreement relating to the said consultancy
work. Pursuant to Ext P1, petitioner and 2 nd respondent
entered into an agreement on 6.11.2014, fixing the time
for completion of work as 11 months from the date of letter
of acceptance. The site was handed over to petitioner on
17.11.2014. As per clause 7 of the agreement, the 2 nd
respondent was to make available the site fixing the plinth
level of the building and for timely supply of structural
and architectural drawing and approval of rates for extra
items and brands of materials to be purchased and consumed;
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
the 2nd respondent has to prepare and submit the running
account bills before the 1st respondent within 10 working
days of presentation of the bill for payment to the
contractor; in the event of failure on the part of the
contractor to submit the bill, the Engineer in charge has
to prepare such bills and to make the payment to the
contractor; bills were to be submitted along with the
recorded measurement before the Engineer in charge. It is
stated that the bills were never paid in time, which
affected the progress of the work. The petitioner complains
that payment was never being made within 10 working days
right from 4.6.2015 onwards; payment towards the RA bills
from 18.09.2017 onwards were being made in 2018, 2019, etc;
the delay in making payment affected the completion of the
work; from the stipulated 11 months, when it got delayed to
more than 3 years, petitioner had to stop the work at a
time when 90% work was completed; the remaining 10% work
like electrical, air conditioning, providing medical gas
line, fire fighting etc were to be done, through
specialized agencies; though the work was resumed in
August, 2018, specialized agencies arranged by it were not
willing to undertake the work for the old rates of 2014.
Relying on Ext.P2 letter dated17.2.2018 of the Chief
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
Engineer, petitioner submits that the delay in payment for
more than one year is admitted by the 2nd respondent. It is
stated that petitioner had as per in Ext P3 letter dated
20.2.2018 addressed the 2nd respondent pointing out the
delay in completion of work because of the physical
hindrances occurred in carrying out the work as well as
denial of timely payment of bills. It had therefore
requested for enhancement of rate by 50%, informing their
preparedness to foreclose the contract on payment of the
arrears due to them including refund of security
deposit/retention amount and all the bills along with
interest, after assessment of unassured items of work. The
2nd respondent, through its Chief Engineer, thereupon, as
per Ext.P4 e-mail dated 28.02.2018 assured to bring the
matter to the notice of the 1 st respondent. Thereafter a
meeting was convened in the Medical College, Trissur on
22.06.2018 in which the Principal had, as per Ext.P5
minutes, assured to take up the claim for 50% escalation on
the balance 10% work with the DME/Government; however in
Ext.P6 letter dated 7.1.2019 though the Principal had
informed the Government about the demand made by petitioner
and the assurance made by the Principal, it was stated
that the work relating to the triage block was not yet
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
started; the Principal had only requested to give necessary
instructions to complete the work. Petitioner submits that
no steps were taken for enhancement of the rate or for any
payment, even after the petitioner submitted Ext.P7
representation to the 3rd respondent on 6.02.2019, Ext.P8
letter to 2nd respondent on 05.06.2019, pointing out the
difficulties faced by it in meeting the expenditure towards
the workers and subcontractors on account of the delay in
payment of bills as well as the refusal to enhance the
rate, the 2nd respondent in Ext P10 letter informed that
they can only act in accordance with the terms of
agreement. In the meanwhile petitioner had also addressed
the Additional Chief Secretary as per Ext.P9 letter dated
20.01.2020 informing that the work had to be stopped for
more than one year due to shortage of funds and refusal to
enhance the rates and requesting for taking immediate steps
to enable the petitioner to resume the work. It is stated
that petitioner had by Exts.P11 and P12 letters intimated
its readiness to complete the balance civil work on
condition that the contract shall be treated as closed
after completion of the civil work and delay in completion
of the work till that time shall be granted without any
penalty and completion of the work shall be recorded and
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
security deposit of the work shall be released. However,
by Ext.P13 letter dt.28.7.2020, the DGM informed the
petitioner that they would get the remaining work done by
alternate arrangements, at the risk and cost of the
petitioner and proceedings for the same are in process.
It is stated that even though an on-line meeting was
thereafter held on 30.7.2020 when the petitioner had
offered to complete the balance civil work at the old rate
on condition that the specialised works had to be carried
out without any risk, cost and liability, the 2 nd
respondent has issued Ext.P14 show cause notice on
25.09.2020 proposing termination of work at the risk and
cost of the petitioner and rearrangement of the work. It
is stated that the petitioner has kept a lot of materials
required for the balance work inside the building for which
the petitioner has to incur running expenditure for keeping
watch and ward. Petitioner had thereupon as per Ext.P15
letter dt.10.10.2020, requested for a joint measurement for
the final bill towards the upto date work done before
engaging any other agency. The Writ Petition is filed at
that stage stating that termination of contract as
proposed, at a time when almost 93% of the work is
completed and non completion was on account of the breach
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
of contract committed by the 2nd respondent, denying
enhancement even after 6 years of commencement of the work,
is unreasonable. Petitioner has sought for a direction to
the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P6 explanation on
merits. Alternatively it seeks a direction to the
respondents to allow closure of contract without risk
liability and settlement of account after proper
measurements and inventory of materials collected and
available at the stores.
2. 1st respondent has in its counter affidavit stated
that "Commencement of Emergency and Critical Care
Department in Government Medical College, Trichur" is
implemented under a centrally sponsored scheme, at a total
cost of Rs.1459.03 lakhs. The construction of Triage
building was entrusted to the 2nd respondent - M/s.HLL
Lifecare Ltd. as per Ext.R1(a) agreement executed between
the Principal Govt.Medical College, Trichur and the 2nd
respondent on 13.09.2013 fixing the total period of
consultancy as 18 months from the date of execution of the
agreement. It is stated that the petitioner is not a party
to Ext R1(a) agreement between respondents 1 and 2. HLL
awarded the work of the second phase to the petitioner for
Rs.5,47,55,5907/-. A sum of Rs.4,44,82,062/- has been
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
released to the 2nd respondent on the basis of the
recommendation of the technical committee (scrutiny of
works/claims in respect of works entrusted to accredited
agencies in DME) against whole bills submitted by the 2 nd
respondent. It is stated that even after 6 years of the
date of execution of agreement with HLL, the works
including construction of corridor, erection of air
conditioners, painting, cleaning etc are yet to be
completed. Several meetings were held and communications
were issued in order to sort out the issues relating to the
completion of the construction at various levels at the
initiative of the Principal of the Medical College as the
completion of the construction is an important and urgent
necessity for the patients admitted in the hospital. It is
stated that the reluctance on the part of the petitioner to
complete the work as per the terms and conditions of the
agreement between the petitioner and 2nd respondent has
resulted in stoppage of the work and denial of an important
life style to the public. Furnishing the time line of the
project undertaken by the petitioner, it is stated that the
work was not completed within the stipulated time; in the
meeting held on 22.6.2018 at the Medical College, Trissur
the petitioner demanded 50% hike on the balance 10% of the
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
work; the Principal had informed that the matter would be
taken up with the DME for favourable consideration provided
the work was restarted; but the petitioner did not restart
the work; on 12.09.2018 directions were issued to the 2 nd
respondent to take immediate action for completing the
work. In the meeting convened by the DME on 21.08.2019 the
2nd respondent agreed that the work would be completed
within one month on payment of a sum of Rs.18,13,195.73 to
the contractor directly; though the said amount was
transferred to the contractor directly on 30.11.2019, the
work was not restarted; even after several letters were
issued from January 2019 onwards to the Government, DME,
the 2nd respondent, the District Collector etc requesting
for directions to petitioner and the 2nd respondent to
complete the work, the work is yet to be completed. It is
stated that a bill received from HLL on 15.06.2019 for a
sum of Rs.18,13,195.73 was forwarded to the technical
committee on 28.6.2019 for sanction; in another meeting
held on 21.8.2019 in the Directorate of Medical Education
with the 2nd respondent and the petitioner though a
settlement was arrived at for completion of the work within
a time frame and the amount due to the petitioner was
transferred to it as per the decision in the meeting and
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
another meeting was held in the Chamber of the District
Collector on 14.2.2020 with the petitioner and the 2nd
respondent, the work is not restarted despite further
letters issued by Government as well as the DME in
September and October 2020. It is stated that the 1 st
respondent's assurance to take up the demand of petitioner
for 50% hike for the balance 10% of the work, in the
meeting held in the Government Medical College on
22.06.2018, was on condition that the petitioner restarted
the work. It is stated that despite the assurances made by
the 2nd respondent and the payment made directly to the
contractor, the contractor withdrew from its offer. It is
stated that the 1st respondent has never agreed for revision
of rates of the work and that the petitioner cannot have
any valid claim for enhancement, on the basis of an
internal correspondence between the 1st respondent and the
Government to sort out the long delayed issue.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit
stating that the project was entrusted to it as a deposit
work on cost-plus consultancy charge basis and under clause
(n) of Ext R2(a) agreement between the 1st respondent and
the 2nd respondent, the consultant is to prepare the bill
of quantities for various works, certify the bills of the
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
contractors/suppliers, and make timely payments to the
contractors/suppliers from the amount deposited with the
consultant by the client. It is stated that the 2 nd
respondent, after inviting tenders issued letter of award
to the petitioner on 24.10.2014 fixing the period of
completion of work as 11 months. Thereafter Ext R2(c)
agreement was entered into between petitioner and 2nd
respondent on 06.11.2014, as per the Ext R2(C) guidelines
issued by the Central Vigilance Commission. It is stated
that the petitioner had started preconstructional
activities at site on 17.11.2014, the date of handing over
itself and had not raised any objection relating to any
hindrance in the site at the time of handing over. It is
stated that the petitioner started raising running bills
from 4.6.2015 onwards; being a consultant, the 2nd
respondent is solely dependent on the 1st respondent for
payment; as 1st respondent did not release funds, the 2nd
respondent had even made advance payments to the
petitioner, in order to avoid delay. It is stated that as
per Ext.R2(b) Government order dt.3.8.2018 the Government
ordered that funds could be released by the client for all
the projects of Government of Kerala directly to the
contractors based on the recommendation of the consultant
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
and therefore the role of the 2 nd respondent was limited to
supervision of bills and certification of bills only in the
Government of Kerala project and therefore payments were
made to the contractor subsequent to the said G.O directly
by the client. It is stated that the petitioner stopped
the work stating delay in payment and demanding enhancement
of rates on balance work; whereas the 2nd respondent is not
vested with project fund for releasing payment to the
petitioner. After the Government issued Ext R2(b) order, 1st
respondent started making payments directly to the
petitioner. When an agreement is executed between the
petitioner and the 2nd respondent, both of them can
only act in terms of the agreement; and the rate of
enhancement other than for extra/substituted items is not
included in the agreement. It is stated that as per the
schedule to the agreement, escalation is not applicable to
the project. It is stated that in view of clause 10B(iv)
of Ext R2(c) agreement dated 6.11.2014 [Ext.R2(c)] and
R2(d) guidelines of Central Vigilance Commission, interest
is charged as per the terms of the contract agreement. The
2nd respondent has furnished the details regarding project
fund received by it from 1st respondent from time to time
and payments made by it to petitioner. It is stated that
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
there is no provision for enhancement for 50% under the
terms of the contract or as per CPWD conditions of contract
and the petitioner cannot unilaterally claim any
enhancement. The 2nd respondent has stated that it does not
have any objection for undertaking measurement of the work
at the site; however it is stated that it would not be
possible to measure any item which is not required for the
work. It is stated that 2nd respondent had not made any
assurances for enhancement of rates; the assurance to take
steps for enhancement as per minutes of the meeting was
conditional on restarting of the work. It is their further
case that extension of time can be granted only if the
delay is not on the part of the contractor. The 2 nd
respondent has stated that they can only recommend the
payment to be released by the 1st respondent and the payment
is to be released by the 1 st respondent. It is further
stated that while finalising the extension of time,
eligible extension and all bonafide hindrances if existing
would be considered including delay in payment. Pointing
out Ext.R2(e) proposal dt.01.08.2020 it is stated that it
is for the 1st respondent to approve the proposal for
carrying out the additional work and for its timely
payment. The 2nd respondent has stated that the work
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
completed even now is only 90% and majority of mechanical
electrical plumbing (MEP) works are still pending and the
contractor did not show any positive response to complete
the work even after show cause notice was issued.
Producing Ext.R2(f) to (h) it is stated that the 2 nd
respondent has always been requesting the Government, the
DME as well as the Principal to expedite the release of
project fund for making payment and it was only on account
of the continuous follow up action of the 2 nd respondent
that the 1st respondent has released payment in November,
2019. It is further stated that even on 13.05.2020 the 2nd
respondent had as per Ext.R2(i) letter addressed the
financing officer of the DME to expedite the payment due to
the petitioner. It is stated that in case respondents 1
and 4 agree with the proposal submitted by the 2 nd
respondent, the work could be completed, provided there is
a written confirmation regarding the prompt payment for the
balance work. However it is stated that petitioner did not
restart the work even after the payment was released in
November, 2019 which lead to the present situation and the
2nd respondent had to issue notice to the petitioner in
accordance with clause 14 of the agreement.
4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
counter affidavit of the 1st respondent. It is stated that
the estimate of the work was prepared on Delhi Schedule of
rates (DSR 2013) and the work was awarded on 24.10.2014;
the cost was 5,47,55590/- after deduction of Rs.7,19,525/-
from the original quoted value. Pointing out Exts.P3, P5,
P7 and P9 it is stated that petitioner had to encounter
various hindrances on account of delay in finalising
drawing, delay in setting out site, delay in approval for
various items including extra items, inordinate delay in
payment despite clause 7 of Ext R2(c) agreement providing
for payment on 10th day of presentation of the bill. It is
stated that more than 90% of the work was completed within
3 years and total work carried out including cost for
supply of materials would come to 93% if proper measurement
is taken. Pointing out Ext.P2 it is stated that the 2 nd
respondent has admitted that the work had to be stopped for
nearly one year due to shortage of fund and that there was
delay in payment by the 2nd respondent also from the project
fund deposited by the Government. According to petitioner,
the work was awarded as a deposit work and petitioner is
not made aware of any orders like Ext R2(b) based on which
payment is to be made by Government contrary to the terms
of the agreement, based on which the 2nd respondent has to
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
ensure payment of running bills within 10 days. It is
stated that even as on 27.10.2017 only 10% of the work
remained to be completed and for that work petitioner had
placed orders for various items including aluminium bars of
different sizes as agreed by the 1st respondent in Ext.P6
and and that 25% of the said work had been completed and
the remaining works were only relating to air conditioning
and the works could have been completed in all respects
within the stipulated time in accordance with the
agreement, in case the rates were enhanced. It is stated
that the work which was restarted in September 2018 had to
be stopped since payment was not made towards RA7 bill.
It is stated that there was a delay of 461 days for its
payment and that too was made in 4 installments. Pointing
out Ext.R2(f) dated 26.7.2019 of the Deputy General
Manager, it is stated that the 2nd respondent has admitted
that bills were kept pending because of paucity of funds.
It is stated that the work of the connection corridor has
to be undertaken by specialised agencies on completion of
subject work using structural steel. It is stated that
Ext.R2(h) letter also would show the request made by
petitioner for withdrawal from the work; it is stated that
though a draft tri-partite agreement for connection
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
corridor work was submitted on 21.8.2019, it was not
approved. It is further stated that even if the work is
proceeded, there is no chance for any payment towards the
work done or for escalation of the rate. Therefore, the
petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent for
foreclosure of the contract without risk liability on
either side and settlement of the petitioner's account
after proper measurements of the work done and to grant an
inventory of the materials collected and available at the
site.
5. Heard Sri K.L.Varghese, the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner, Shri. Jaju Babu, the learned Senior
Counsel for the 2nd respondent and Smt.Princiy Xavier the
learned G.P for the 1st respondent.
6. It is an admitted fact that the work awarded to
petitioner on 24.10.2014 for which Ext R2(c) agreement was
executed between petitioner and 2nd respondent is not yet
over even after the expiry of more than 6 years. The
purpose of the construction undertaken by the petitioner
through the 2nd respondent, who is the consultant of 1st
respondent/Government is for setting up of emergency
critical care Department in Government Medical College,
Trissur. The delay in completion of the work affects the
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
general public who are the beneficiaries of the project,
when the number of patients continue to rise day by day.
7. It cannot be disputed that the terms and conditions
in the agreements are to be respected by the parties to the
agreements. It is also seen that 90% of the work was
already completed within a period of 3 years; though the
agreement was executed stipulating the period of completion
as 11 months, it is seen that extension of time was granted
without imposing any penalty from time to time. According
to the petitioner, the delay in completion of the said 90%
of the work occurred on account of the hindrances at the
site coupled with delay in payment despite the fact that he
had undertaken a deposit work. It is an admitted fact by
all the parties that 90% of the work was already completed
atleast on 22.6.2018 as evident from Ext R1(a) minutes of
the meeting in which the discussion was in respect of the
remaining 10% of the work. Ext.R2(g) also would show that
as on 27.10.2017 itself 90% of work was completed. While
there are provisions for completion of work, provisions are
available for payment towards bills also within the
stipulated time; the various documents produced by the
petitioners as well as respondents would show that there
was delay in payment also; the consultant's version is that
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
payment could be made only if funds are made available by
the 1st respondent; however payment is seen made directly to
the contractor from 30.11.2019 onwards, which according to
the 2nd respondent is based on Ext R2(b) order dated
03.08.2018. It is seen that payment was being made only on
recommendation of technical committee. It would appear that
there was delay in payment in contravention of the terms of
the agreements in between the parties. The refusal to
enhance the rate is stated to be absence of a provision in
the agreement. It is seen that the rate fixed for
completing the work was the one which prevailed at the time
of execution of the agreement which was in 2014. When the
petitioner points out that the delay occurred at the
instance of the respondents with respect to the hindrances
at the site as well as the payment, it would appear that
there had been breach of terms of the contract at the
instance of either of the parties to the respective
contracts.
8. According to the petitioner, the work which remains
to be completed is the work to be done through specialized
agencies and the materials are already procured and
stocked. The petitioner has been requesting for foreclosure
of the agreement. One of the grievances raised by the
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
petitioner is that measurement of the work is not being
undertaken. The 2nd respondent has stated that it does not
have any objection for the same.
9. Though the 1st respondent is not a party to the
agreement entered into between the petitioner and 2nd
respondent and the petitioner is not a party to the
agreement between respondents 1 and 2 and normally the
grievance of the contracting parties are to be resolved in
tune with the provisions in agreement, it is seen that
several meetings were convened with all the parties in
order to sort out the issue.
10. In the circumstances of the case, taking note of
the fact that the beneficiaries of the project are the
sufferers on account of all these breaches, I deem it
appropriate to direct that a final decision pursuant to
Ext.P13 show cause notice shall be taken after a meeting is
convened by the Government and Director of Medical
Education with the respondents 1 and 2 and the petitioner
and giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to petitioner
taking note of the contentions of all the parties. The
question regarding the materials procured by the petitioner
for the balance work shall also be decided in the said
meeting.
W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2020
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA
rkc JUDGE
WP(C).No.23073 OF 2020(H)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED
24.10.2014 ISSUED BY TEH 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.2.2018
ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.NJT/111/HLL/TCR
DATED 20.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
WITH COPY TO THE DEPUTY VICE PRESIDENT
(TECHNICAL) AND PROJECT MANAGER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 28.2.2018
SENT BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING DATED
22.6.2018 CONVENED AT THE CHAMBER OF
PRINCIPAL, GMCTCR.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.1.2019
ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT-PRINCIPAL TO
THE 4TH RESPONDENT-ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.2.2019
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO OTHER OFFICERS AS
ALSO PRINCIPAL OF THE MEDICAL COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.6.2019
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DEPUTY
GENERAL MANAGER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.1.2020
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH
RESPONDENT-ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.3.2020
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
WP(C).No.23073 OF 2020(H)
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.7.2020
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DGM(IDD) OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.7.2020
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DGM(IDD) OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.7.2020
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DGM(IDD) OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
25.9.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.10.2020
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT DATED
13.9.2013 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 2ND
RESPONDENT AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.118/2018/FIN
DATED 3.8.2018 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
CONTRACT AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM/CIRCULAR
DATED 10.4.2007 VIDE NO 4CC-1/CTE/2 ISSUED
BY THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT R2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL NO HLL/TRIAGE-
TSR/DGM/2020-21/665 DATED 1.8.2020
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R2(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO HLL/TRIAGE-
TSR/DGM/2019-20/1163 DATED 26.7.2019
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
DIRECTOR, DME, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT R2(G) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER HLL/TRIAGE-
TSR/DGM/2019-20/1163 DATED 27.10.2017
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R2(H) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO
WP(C).No.23073 OF 2020(H)
HLL/ID/TRIAGE/DGM/2019-20/2211 DATED
12.11.2019 SUBMITTED THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R2(I) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO
HLL/ID/TRAIGE/DGM/2020-21/37 DATED
13.5.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE SENIOR FINANCE OFFICER, DME,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT R2(J) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO HLL/ID/TRAIGE-
TSR/DGM/2019-20/2819 DATED 8.1.2020
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
13/09/2013.
EXHIBIT R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
HELD ON 22/06/2018.
EXHIBIT R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
HELD ON 25/11/2019.
