Kerala High Court
Haris T.A vs The State Of Kerala on 19 November, 2021
WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
HARIS T.A
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O T.A.MAHIN HAJI, RESIDING AT THAYAL MALIKA HOUSE,
THEKKIL FERRY(PO) KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 541.
BY ADVS.
JAWAHAR JOSE
CISSY MATHEWS
SARUN RAJAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPREENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER
(PWD BUILDINGS), PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM
JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN (PO) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695
033.
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
(PWD BUILDINGS), NORTH CIRCLE, MANANCHIRA (PO)
KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.11.2021, THE COURT ON 19.11.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 21468 OF 2021 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.21468 of 2021
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2021
JUDGMENT
One of the famous quote about School is like this:
"School is a building which has four walls with tomorrow
inside." The schools having sufficient infrastructure including
rooms and learning spaces in good condition is decisive for
students to achieve the expected academic results. The term
infrastructure is comprehensive and there are number of
aspects that are included in it. This include play grounds,
library facilities, laboratories, computer centers, technology,
machinery, tools, equipments etc. When the Government is
trying to increase the infrastructure of schools where our
"tomorrow is inside", it is the duty of each and every citizens
of this country to help the Government to achieve the targets.
PWD Contractors who are constructing the school buildings
and other infrastructures should be more vigilant and should
see that the works are completed within time stipulated in
the contract. Contractors are not one party to a public work
contract. They are also human beings. They may have school
going children. While the contractors are doing the
construction works in school premises, they should see the
faces of innocent children who are studying in those schools
waiting for better infrastructure. That is why I said that the
contractors are not a party to a work contract alone, but they
are also human being and hence should co-operate with the
Government to see that the infrastructure constructions in
schools are completed within the stipulated time. Contractors
are citizen first and then only a party to a work contract.
PWD contractors have got a public duty in addition to their
terms and conditions in their work contract to see that the
infrastructure constructions in schools entrusted to them are
completed within the stipulated time.
2. The petitioner is a PWD contractor. He filed this
writ petition aggrieved by a decision of respondents 2 and 3
whereby the contract work of a school building which was
assigned to him stands cancelled at his risk and cost. The 3 rd
respondent invited tenders for a contract work for the
construction of a school building at Government Higher
Secondary School, Munderi, Kannur District. Tenders were
invited during the month of October, 2020 and the tenders
were opened on 4.12.2020. The petitioner was the lowest
bidder and hence Ext.P1 letter dated 10.12.2020 was issued
to the petitioner intimating him about his selection. Based on
Ext.P1 letter, the petitioner executed an agreement with the
respondents and the site was taken over by the petitioner for
the work on 15.1.2021. Ext.P2 is the acknowledgment form
of handing over the site to the contractor. As per Ext.P3
Project Information sheet, the time of completion of the work
is 12 months. Ext.P4 is the work chart prepared as directed
by the 3rd respondent.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 27.03.2021,
as per Ext.P5 notice, the 3rd respondent informed that a delay
occurred in the execution of the work. It is the case of the
petitioner that Ext.P5 is issued even before completion of
three months which is the first target date for achieving the
work milestone of 25%. According to the petitioner, the
general election of the State legislative assembly was on
06.04.2021 and the premises of the Government Higher
Secondary School, Munderi was one of the poling booths in
the Kannur constituency and the work could not be executed
for about two weeks from 27.03.2021 to 10.04.2021. The
petitioner produced Ext.P5(a) to show that the above school
is a poling station for the general election. It is the further
case of the petitioner that, even though the work was
resumed on 12.04.2021, from 06.05.2021 the Government of
Kerala declared complete lock down in Kerala due to Covid
19 pandemic which continued up to 09.06.2021. Exts.P6 to
P9 are the orders. It is the case of the petitioner that, during
the lock down period itself, the 3 rd respondent issued Ext.P10
order terminating the contract at the risk and cost of the
petitioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that even
though letter dated 03.05.2021 and letter dated 25.05.2021
of the Executive Engineer, PWD Building Division, Thalassery
and also another letter dated 10.05.2021 of the Principal,
Government Higher Secondary School, Munderi are referred
in Ext.P10, the same was not served to the petitioner. The
petitioner challenged Ext.P10 before the 2nd respondent. The
2nd respondent issued orders on 20.07.2021, whereby the
termination of work was revoked on condition that the
petitioner shall deposit the security amount as specified in
the PWD manual. Ext.P11 is the order. The petitioner again
submitted Ext.P12 to review Ext.P11. But the 3 rd respondent
replied to Ext.P12 directing the petitioner to deposit 30% of
the balance work as security as prescribed in PWD manual
for continuing the work. Ext.P13 is the letter. Ext.P14 is the
subsequent letter issued to pay the security deposit.
Subsequently, the 3rd respondent invited fresh tenders for the
same work as per Ext.P16. Aggrieved by the same, this writ
petition is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated
his contentions in the writ petition. The learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that Ext.P5 notice was issued to the
petitioner before completing three months from the date on
which the worksite was handed over to the petitioner. The
counsel submitted that the first work milestone target of 25%
will end only after three months from the date of handing
over of the worksite. Even before completing the three
months, Ext.P5 is issued and that itself shows that there is
malafide intention to terminate the contract on the part of
the respondents. The counsel also submitted that because of
the general election to the legislative assembly the work was
stalled for two weeks. The counsel takes me through
Ext.P5(a) in which it is stated that the Government Higher
Secondary School, Munderi is a polling booth. The counsel
also takes me through Exts.P6 to P9 to show that there was
complete lock down in the State from 06.05.2021 to
09.06.2021. There was no manpower available during this
period and because of the complete lock down, no civil work
was possible or even imagine during that period because of
the situation at that time, is the submission of the petitioner.
The counsel also submitted that Ext.P10 order is passed
without serving the notices referred in that order. It is also
submitted that Ext.P11 order directing the petitioner to
deposit 30% of the balance work as security is unjustified.
According to the counsel, once the above offer is accepted,
then the petitioner has to concede that there is delay in
completing the work. The contention of the petitioner is that
the petitioner completed the targeted milestone as per the
work schedule, if the lock down period and the general
election period is excluded. It is the definite case of the
petitioner that if a measurement as per paragraph 2109 of
PWD manual is done, it will be clear that the petitioner
attained the targeted milestone. It is also the case of the
petitioner that the other contractors too have not done any
work during the period from 08.05.2021 to 09.06.2021 as
there was complete lock down and they were allowed to do
the work after the lockdown period and now they completed
80% of their work. Since the petitioner's contract was
terminated on 28.05.2021, the petitioner could not continue
with the work and otherwise the petitioner could also have
completed 80% of work like other contractors. It is the
definite case of the petitioner that he undertakes to complete
the work within a period of six months from the date of
re-entrustment of the worksite, if the order of termination is
revoked by the competent authority.
6. The learned Government Pleader, on the other
hand, opposed the contentions of the petitioner. The
Government Pleader takes me through the counter affidavit
filed by the 3rd respondent and also the exhibits produced
along with the counter affidavit. The Government Pleader
submitted that the administrative sanction for this work was
on 30.10.2020 for an amount of Rs.225 lakhs. The agreement
was executed with the petitioner on 07.01.2021. The
Government Pleader takes me through Ext.R3(b), which is
the contract data in which the work milestone is mentioned.
The Government Pleader submitted that, by the end of three
months from the date on which the land was handed over,
25% of the work ought to have been completed. Similarly, by
the end of six months, 50% of the work including completion
of building structure is to be completed. Thereafter, by the
end of nine months, 75% of the work is to be completed and
by the end of twelve months, 100% of work is to be
completed. The Government Pleader submitted that even
though several reminders were sent before Ext.P5, there is
no response from the petitioner and that is why Ext.P10
order was passed. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd
respondent, it is stated that before Ext.P5 letter, many letters
were issued to the petitioner from Section Office, Sub
Division Office and Division Office. But none of those letters
were produced along with the counter affidavit. Ext.R3(c) is
a letter issued by the Executive Engineer and that is dated
03.05.2021 and the same is subsequent to Ext.P5. Thereafter
it is stated that Ext.R3(d) was issued. But, on perusal of
Ext.R3(d), it seems that that the same is Ext.P5 itself.
Thereafter, along with the counter affidavit, Ext.R3(e) is
produced to show that there is a letter from the Executive
Engineer to the petitioner on 03.05.2021. Again it seems
that Ext.R3(e) is the same letter, which is produced as
Ext.R3(c). I don't understand why the letter dated 03.5.2021
is produced as Exts.R3(c) and R3(e). Thereafter, Ext.R3(f) is
produced along with the counter and the Government
Pleader submitted that in Ext.R3(f), the Principal of the
School informed the 3rd respondent that there is no men or
machinery in the worksite as on 10.05.2021. But it is to be
noted that, 10.05.2021 is a day on which lock down is in force
as evident by Ext.P6. But the Goverment pleader submitted
that as per clause 17 of Annexure to Ext.P6 will show that
construction and maintenance works is permitted. But the
question is whether the workers were ready to do the work
during such pandamic situation. The Government Pleader
submitted that the machineries and equipments imported and
purchased for installation in the school are kept idle and that
is why the petitioner was directed to complete the work
immediately and when the petitioner refused to complete the
work, Ext.P10 was issued. The learned Government Pleader
also submitted that on 27.05.2021 the Executive Engineer,
Assistant Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Principal
of the said school and PTA Secretary, conducted a joint
inspection at the worksite and assessed the ground situation.
The Government Pleader submitted that there was no men
and machinery available at the site on 27.05.2021 and there
was no representative from the part of the contractor.
Hence, Ext.P10 was issued. At this stage also, it is to be
remembered that as per Ext.P8, the lock down was extended
till 30.05.2021 and on the date on which the inspection was
conducted it was admittedly a lock down day. The
Government Pleader also takes me through Exts.R3(h) and
R3(i) which are the relevant portions of general condition of
contract. The Government Pleader submitted that as per
clause 20.7.(b) if the progress of any portion of the work is
unsatisfactory, the engineer-in-charge, after giving the
contractor 15 days notice in writing, without canceling or
terminating the contract, shall be entitled to employ another
agency for executing the jobs or to carryout the work
departmentally or contractually through tendering process,
either fully or partly, debiting the contractor with cost
involved in engaging another agency or with the cost of
labour and price of materials as the case may be. It is the
specific case of the Government Pleader that there was no
restriction to the already started work as per the model code
of conduct, which came into existence during the general
election period. It is also submitted by the Government
Pleader that the other works under the MUDRAA projects
executed by the other agencies like Nirmithi Kendra, Kannur,
Unique Builders Kannur, Rubco, ULCCS Vadakara etc., were
progressing in the same campus and the work was stalled
only for a period of two days in connection with the election
and restarted on 07.04.2021. No other delay was there at
the site in connection with the legislative assembly election.
It is also submitted that Ward Nos.6 and 7 of Munderi Grama
Panchayat, where the School was situated, were not a
containment zone in 2021. The Government Pleader
submitted that the contractor completed only 11% of the
work and this shows that the work was delayed due to the
default from the part of the contractor and not due to the
lock down. The Government Pleader submitted that even
though Ext.R3(j) was issued by the Chief Engineer [Ext.P11 is
produced as Ext.R3(j)] the petitioner refused to accept that
offer. Ext.R3(k) is the programme schedule and Ext.P4 is also
the same. According to the Government Pleader, the
petitioner failed to complete the work within the schedule
and therefore, Ext.P10 was issued and even after Ext.P11,
the petitioner refused to accept the same and refused to
resume the work. The Government Pleader also submitted
that even the writ petition is filed after a long period and the
refusal on the part of the petitioner to resume the work will
show that he is negligent and not interested to do the work.
Hence, the Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner
is not entitled to any relief.
7. I considered the contentions of the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader. The work allotted to the
petitioner is the construction of school building and other
allied work at Government Higher Secondary School,
Munderi, Kannur District. The question to be decided is
whether the termination of contract as per Ext.P10 by the 3 rd
respondent is sustainable or not. For better understanding of
the facts the following dates and events will be helpful.
Sl.No. Events Date
Administrative Sanction
1 30.10.20
granted for the work
Intimation from the 3rd
respondent to the petitioner
2 10.12.20
about the acceptance of the
tender
Agreement executed with the
3 07.01.21
petitioner
The worksite handed over to
4 15.01.21
the petitioner
i) End of 3 months 25%
ii) End of 6 months
50% including
Work milestone as per completion of building
Exhibit R(3)(b). structure
iii) End of 9 months
75%
iii) End of 12 months
100%
6 First reminder letter(Ext P5) 27.03.21
General Election to State
7 06.04.21
Legislative Assembly
Letter No.D5/BL/2020/6194
by the Executive Engineer,
8 03.05.21
Building Division, Thalassery,
to the petitioner
GO (Rt.) No. 404/21/DMD
declaring the lockdown in the
9 06.05.21
State from 08.05.21 till
16.05.21(Ext P6)
Letter No.104/MW of the
10 10.05.21
Principal Govt.HSS, Munderi
GO (Rt.) No. 416/2021/DMD
11 extending the lockdown from 14.05.21
17.05.21 to 23.05.21.(Ext P7)
GO (Rt.) No. 432/2021/DMD
12 extending the lockdown from 21.05.21
24.05.21 to 30.05.21(Ext P8)
Letter No. A1 Gen/2021 from
13 25.05.21
the Executive Engineer
14 Site inspection 27.05.21
Order cancelling the
15 28.05.21
contract.(Ext.P10)
GO (Rt.) No. 444/2021/DMD
16 extending the lockdown from 29.05.21
31.05.21 to 09.06.21.(Ext P7)
Letter from the petitioner to
17 09.06.21
the Chief Engineer
Letter
No.CE/BL/KNR/65178/2021
of the Chief Engineer
18 23.07.21
revoking the contract on
payment of security amount.
(Ext P11)
Re-tender notice [GO(Rt.)
19 31.07.21
No.1444/2021/LSGD]
20 Representation by the 12.08.21
petitioner to review the
order dated 23.07.21(P11) of
the Chief Engineer
Letter from the 3rd
21 respondent to pay 30% of the 31.08.21
balance work as security
The rejection of the prayer to
lift the payment of security
22 20.09.21
deposit as per letter
No.DB2/BL/2020/6194(P14)
8. From the above dates and events, it is clear that
the worksite was handed over to the petitioner on
15.01.2021. The question to be decided is whether the
petitioner completed the work milestone narrated in
Ext.R3(b) contract data. The petitioner says that he
completed the targeted work, if the period during which the
school was closed in connection with the General Election
and the period during which the lockdown was declared is
excluded. According to the petitioner, Ext.P10 order is
passed based on an inspection conducted on 27.05.2021.
Ext.P10 is dated 28.05.2021. Admittedly, 27.05.2021 is a
lockdown day as evident by Ext.P8. According to the
petitioner, the employees were not available for carrying out
the work and there is complete restriction for doing the civil
works during this period. On the other hand, the Government
Pleader based on the affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent and
also based on clause 17 of the Annexure to Ext P6 submitted
that there is absolutely no prohibition in doing the civil works
during this period and similar works were completed by the
other agencies in the same School itself. Therefore, the
Government Pleader submitted that there is nothing to
interfere in Ext.P10. It is true that clause 17 of Ext P6
excluded construction and maintenance work from lockdown.
But the question is whether man power was available during
that period because of the pandemic situation. It was a
reality that people were afraid to come out of the house
during that period. A perusal of Ext.P10 and other documents
will show that the inspection of the worksite by the
authorities of respondents are in the absence of the
petitioner. According to the petitioner, no notice was given to
the petitioner and he was not available at the worksite
because of the lockdown. On the other hand, the official
respondents says that there was nobody to represent the
petitioner at the worksite and it is the duty of the contractor
to be present at the worksite at any time and the officials are
duty bound to inspect the worksite. Therefore, the site
inspection was conducted without giving notice to the
petitioner. Ext.P5 notice is the first notice issued by the
respondents. It is true that the 3 rd respondent stated in the
counter affidavit that several letters and reminders were sent
to the petitioner before Ext.P5, but nothing is produced
before this Court to show that there were any such letters or
reminders from the side of the respondent. Ext.P5 is dated
27.03.2021, i.e. within two months and 7 days from the date
on which the worksite was handed over to the petitioner as
per Ext.P2. If we peruse Ext.R3(b), the first work milestone of
25% of work is by the end of three months from the date on
which the worksite was handed over. That means, the first
work milestone is to be completed on or before 14.04.2021.
Admittedly, Ext.P5 notice is on 27.03.2021. Thereafter, the
site inspection was on 27.05.2021 based on which Ext.P10
order cancelling the contract was passed. Admittedly, the
site inspection was conducted in the absence of the
petitioner. As I stated earlier, the petitioner is confident even
now to the effect that, if the measurement of the work is
taken as per paragraph 2109 of PWD Manual, it will be clear
that the petitioner completed the required percentage of
work within the said time schedule. It will be better to
extract the relevant portion of the reply affidavit, which deals
about the above aspect.
"As the worksite was handed over to the contractor
on 15-1-2021, the 3 months period expires on 14-4-
2021. The petitioner has completed the required
percentage of work within the said time schedule
and the same can be ascertained, if any agency like
CPWD is entrusted with the said task. That apart,
the 3rd respondent has not measured the quantity
of works done by the contractor, in accordance
with the stipulation in the PWD manual. As per
paragraph 2109 of the said manual, every
measurement shall be taken by the officer in the
presence of the contractor or his authorized agent,
and that the signature of the contractor shall be
obtained in the measurement book as a token of his
acceptance. In the case in hand, no notice was sent
to the petitioner, till this day, intimating the
intention to take measurement. Thus, the assertion
in the counter affidavit that the contractor has
completed only 11% of the total work is incorrect."
9. The relevant portion of paragraph 2109 of PWD
Manual, Revised Edition, 2020 is extracted hereunder :
"Payment for the works within the TS powers of the
Superintending Engineer shall be based on
measurements recorded at various stages of the
work by the Overseer/ Assistant Engineer as the
case may be and duly checked by superior officers.
The contractor or his authorised agent shall be
present at the time of recording of each set of
measurements and shall sign the measurement
book and/or level field book in token of his
acceptance. If the contractor fails to be present at
the time of taking measurements either in person or
through his authorised agent or fails to accept the
measurements or file objections to the
measurements with reasons before check
measurement, the measurements taken by the
Engineer / Overseer shall be deemed to be correct
subject to check measurements."
10. I think the dispute can be resolved, if an inspection
is conducted by the competent authorities of respondents
with notice to the petitioner and measure the work already
done by the petitioner. After assessing the work already
done and after excluding the period during which there was
absolute lockdown, during which period no civil work can be
done and also during the period, during when the General
Election was conducted in the state, I think the matter can
be solved. I am taking such a stand because it is a
construction of a School building and other amenities to the
School. A contractor is already appointed and according to
him, he started the work. The respondents also concedes that
the work already started and 11% of the work completed.
But, the work milestone as per Ext.R3(b) is not attained by
the petitioner-contractor. The petitioner says that he attained
the work milestone, if the period during which there was
absolute lockdown and the days on which the General
Election was conducted in the State is excluded from the
above period. This can be easily find out by the authorities
concerned. There is no other allegation against the
petitioner-contractor except the fact that the petitioner has
not completed the work within the time frame fixed in
Ext.R3(b). If this is detected, the re-tendering of the work
and other formalities can be avoided. If Ext.P16 re-tendering
proceedings is to be continued, it will be again delayed. A
new contractor has to be found out, the agreement has to be
executed, the site is to be handed over and he has to start
and complete the work. The ultimate beneficiaries of the
work is the students. I am also taking note of the averments
in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, in which it is
specifically stated that, the petitioner is ready to complete
the work within a period of six months from the date of re-
entrustment of the worksite. Therefore, according to me,
without interfering with Ext.P10 and P11 orders, there can
be a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh
representation before the 3rd respondent to reconsider Ext
P10. The 3rd respondent and the other officers can inspect the
worksite with notice to the petitioner and measure the work
already done by the petitioner and find out whether the work
milestone as per Ext.R3(b) is attained by the petitioner. Of
course, while assessing the work milestone as per Ext.R3(b),
the 3rd respondent will consider to excude the days during
which there was absolute lockdown in the State, by which the
civil works are prohibited and also the days on which the
School premises was given to the officials of the Election
Commission, in connection with the General Election. Based
on such measurement, the 3rd respondent can decide whether
Ext.P10 is to be reconsidered or not. The 3 rd respondent will
take a pragmatic approach in the matter, considering the
entire facts and circumstances of this case. I once again
make it clear that it is the discretion of the 3 rd respondent to
pass appropriate orders in the representation. But, the 3 rd
respondent will consider the delay that will occur if the re-
tendering process based on Ext.P16 is continued. Therefore,
without interfering with Exts.P10 and P11, there can be a
direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the
3rd respondent to review Ext.P10 order with a request to
measure the work already done by the petitioner after giving
notice to him. Based on the same, the respondents can decide
whether Ext.P10 is to be reviewed or not. There is already an
interim order staying further proceedings consequent to Ext
P16. The same can be continued till final orders are passed
by the 3rd respondent in the representation.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following
manner :
1) The petitioner will submit a representation before the
3rd respondent narrating his contentions and grounds to
review Ext.P10 order and also requesting the 3 rd
respondent to conduct a site inspection, with notice to
the petitioner. The representation, if any shall be filed
within 5 days from today.
2) Once such a representation is received, the 3 rd
respondent will consider the same and conduct a site
inspection with notice to the petitioner and measure the
work already done by the petitioner in accordance to
paragraph 2109 of PWD Manual.
3) Based on the inspection and also based on the
contentions and grounds mentioned by the petitioner in
the representation, the 3rd respondent will decide,
whether to review Ext.P10 or not.
4) The above exercise should be completed by the 3 rd
respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of
the representation because the construction proposed is
for a School building and the amenities in the School.
Therefore, the 3rd respondent will decide the matter
immediately, without any delay.
5) If the representation is submitted as directed above, all
further proceedings based on Ext P16 should be kept it
abeyance till a decision is taken in the representation.
6) Issue a copy of this judgment today itself.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DAS
dm
SKS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21468/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
10.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM
DATED 15.1.2021 EVIDENCING THE HANDING
OVER OF THE WORK SITE
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROJECT INFORMATION
SHEET WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTRACT
WORK ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROGRAM SCHEDULE
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
27.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
POLLING STATIONS IN KANNUR
CONSTITUENCY DATED NIL
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.5.2021
BEARING NUMBER GO (RT)404/2021/DMD
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.5.2021
BEARING NUMBER GO(RT) 416/2021/DMD
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.5.2021
BEARING NUMBER GO(RT) 432/2021/DMD
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.5.2021
BEARING NUMBER GO(RT) 444/2021/DMD
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.5.2021
BEARING NUMBER EB2/BL/2020/6194
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.7.2021
BEARING NUMBER CE/BL/KNR/65178/2021
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
12.8.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
31.8.2021 BEARING NUMBER
DB2/BL/2020/6194 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
20.9.2021 BEARING NUMBER
DB2/BL/2020/6194 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TOGETHER WITH THE POSTAL
COVER
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE TRACKING DETAILS
DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF POSTAL
DEPARTMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE
CONSIGNMENT BEARING NUMBER
RL467614678IN
Exhibit P15(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MANUAL
(REVISED EDITION 2012)
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
2.10.2021 INVITING TENDER ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.7.2021
BEARING NUMBER 1444/2021/LSGD
RESPONDENTS EXTS:
EXT.R3(A) COPY OF THE DOCUMENT MADE BY MEMBER
OF PARLIAMENT SRI.K.K.RAGESH
EXT.R3(B) COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF CONTRACT DATA
EXT.R3(C) COPY OF LETTER DTD.3.5.2021 ISSUED FROM
THE OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
EXT R3(D) COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.27.3.2021
EXT R3(E) COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER.
EXT R3(F) COPY OF LETTER DTD 10.5.2021
EXT R3(G) COPY OF THE LIST OF MACHINERIES AND
EQUIPMENTS IMPORTED AND PURCHASED FOR
INSTALLATION IN SCHOOL WHICH ARE IDLING.
EXT R3(H) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
CONTRACT
EXT R3(I) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF SBD
EXT R3(J) COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 23.7.2021
EXT R3(K) COPY OF THE PROGRAMME SCHEDULE OF THE
WORK WHICH FORM PART OF THE CONTRACT.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
