Kerala High Court
Kabeer M vs State Of Kerala on 25 April, 2023
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
: 1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 1323 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
KABEER M.
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. M. ABDULLA, CONTRACTOR, MUNDANGALAM HOUSE, THEKKIL
FERRY P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671 541.
BY ADVS.
SRI. BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
SRI. MOHAMMED SHAFI.K
SMT. K.S.ARCHANA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695 001.
2 CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS), PUBLIC OFFICES, VIKAS
BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695 033.
3 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS NORTH CIRCLE, PWD
COMPLEX, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673 001.
4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS DIVISION, KOZHIKODE., PIN -
673 020.
5 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS SUB DIVISION, KOYILANDI,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673 305.
6 ASSISTANT ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS SECTION, PERAMBRA,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673 525.
SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
: 2:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.04.2023,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6039/2023, THE COURT ON 25.04.2023 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
: 3:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 6039 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
KABEER M.
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. M. ABDULLA, CONTRACTOR, MUNDANGALAM HOUSE, THEKKIL
FERRY P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671 541.
BY ADV BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695 001.
2 CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS), PUBLIC OFFICES, VIKAS
BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695 033.
3 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS NORTH CIRCLE, PWD
COMPLEX, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673 001.
4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS DIVISION, KOZHIKODE., PIN -
673 020.
5 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS SUB DIVISION, KOYILANDI,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673 305.
6 ASSISTANT ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS SECTION, PERAMBRA,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673 525.
BY ADV. SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
: 4:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.04.2023,
ALONG WITH WP(C).1323/2023, THE COURT ON 25.04.2023 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
: 5:
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). Nos. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of April, 2023.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same person--a
contractor engaged by the State Public Works Department for the work
"Improvements to Vadakkumbad - Vanchipara - Gopurathildam road
between km 0/000 to 3/300 (balance work)", evident from Exhibit P1
selection notice.
2. W.P.(C) No. 1323 of 2023 is filed challenging Exhibit P21
order terminating the contract awarded to the petitioner; whereas,
W.P.(C) No. 6039 of 2023 is filed challenging Exhibit P24 re-tender
notification dated 18.02.2023 issued for the aforesaid work.
Therefore, I heard them together and proposed to pass this common
judgment.
3. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as
follows:
The work was originally awarded to one Mr. Faiz M.D, Kasaragod
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
District. However, it was terminated at the risk and cost of the said
person, allegedly when the application seeking revision of schedule of
work, consequent to the enhancement of the width of the road from
3.5 meters to 5.5 meters, was pending consideration before the Chief
Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads), Thiruvananthapuram,
respondent No. 2. It was thereafter that a re-tender was invited and
the consequent Exhibit P1 selection notice was issued to the petitioner.
Pursuant to Exhibit P1 selection notice, petitioner has executed Ext. P2
agreement dated 17.05.2022 with the Superintending Engineer, Public
Works Department (Roads) North Circle, Kozhikode, respondent No.3,
on providing a performance guarantee of Rs.10,72,500/- and an
additional performance guarantee of Rs. 37,42,802/- in accordance
with Exhibit P1 selection notice. As per the agreement, the work is to
be completed within 8 months, with a guarantee period of 36 months
from the date of completion. Apparently, a milestone was also fixed in
regard to the rate of progress, that is to say, 25% at the end of the
third month; 75% at the end of the 6 th month; and 100% at the end of
8th month. The amount of estimate was Rs.4,08,95,611.18.
4. According to the petitioner, when the work was in progress, it
was proposed by the Superintending Engineer and the Executive
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
Engineer, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, to enhance the width of the road
from 3.5 meters to 5.5. meters. Therefore, it is contended, when the
width of the road increases from 3.5 meters to 5.5 meters, it is
necessary to revise the estimate in tune with the actual quantity of the
work. The sum and substance of the contention advanced is that the
revision of estimate has become essential and necessary as
contemplated under clause 2111 of the PWD Manual Revised Edition,
2012. The contention put forth by the petitioner is that since the width
of the road increases from 3.5 meters to 5.5. meters, the total
quantity of the materials involved in the work would be increased to
100% above the original estimate, which was approved by respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 at the time of issuance of tender notification, pursuant to
which Exhibit P1 selection notice was issued to the petitioner.
5. Therefore, it is submitted that if the tender notification was issued
after getting approval for revision of estimate in tune with the actual
width of the road i.e, 5.5 meters to provide BM and BC, no such
revision of estimate would have been necessary. But, in the instant
case, according to the petitioner, tender notification was issued when
the proposal for revision of estimate was pending consideration of
theChief Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads),
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.2, consequent to the claim raised
by the original contractor Mr. Faiz M.D. It is also submitted that it is
evident from sl. No. 18 of Exhibit P4, detailed estimate forming part of
the agreement, that the width of the road from km 0/000 to 3/300 is
5.5 meters.
6. Accordingly, it is submitted that it was based on the quantity
of the materials provided in the detailed estimate that the petitioner
has submitted the bid agreeing to execute the work at a certain rate.
It is further submitted that the quantity of such items may either
increase or decrease. However, when the quantity increases, the
provisions and procedures contemplated under clause 2111 of the
PWD Manual would come into operation and only on getting the
revision of estimate approved by the tender authority, the petitioner
would get the right to commence the execution of the work based on
the agreement executed with the Superintending Engineer, respondent
No.3.
7. It is also contended that based on Ext.P4 detailed estimate of
the work, the initial levels of the work were recorded by the petitioner,
as per Exhibit P5 in the presence of the Assistant Engineer, the 6 th
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
respondent, and other officials and it seems, Ext.P5 was submitted to
the 6th respondent, along with Exhibit P6 letter dated 14.7.2022.
Therefore, it is pointed out that the petitioner would commence the
work only if Ext.P5 initial levels were reported to the Chief Technical
Examiner (CTE). It is also submitted that for reasons not known to
the petitioner, the respondents have withheld the Ext.P5 initial levels,
without reporting to the CTE and that even now, Ext.P5 initial levels
were not reported to the CTE.
8. Anyhow, the 6th respondent, as per Exhibit P7 letter dated
18.7.2022, directed the petitioner to record the initial levels of the
road at the width of 8 meters, which according to the petitioner, is
deviating from the provisions of work contemplated in Ext.P4 detailed
estimate. Thereafter, the Assistant Executive Engineer, the 5 th
respondent, has issued Exhibit P8 letter dated 20.7.2022, reiterating
the directions issued in Ext.P7 letter.
9. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P9 representation
dated 25.7.2022 before the 3rd respondent, requesting to revise the
schedule of work attached to the agreement and Ext.P4 detailed
estimate, by increasing the width of the road from 5.5 meters to 8
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
meters, to get the width of 5.5 meters for surface traffic.
10. The petitioner has also submitted Exhibits P10 and P11
representations dated 26.7.2022 and 01.08.2022 before respondent
Nos. 5 and 3 respectively. In order to discuss the issue, a meeting
was convened by the Superintending Engineer, respondent No.3, on
17.8.2022, as is evident from Exhibit P12 letter dated 19.8.2022, as
per which the petitioner was directed to record the initial levels for the
construction of the road at 8 meters, which according to the petitioner,
is deviating from Ext.P4 detailed estimate and which was
impermissible for want of approval of revision of estimate and the
same was pending consideration before the Chief Engineer, respondent
No.2.
11. The Executive Engineer, respondent No.4 then issued
Exhibit P13 letter dated 03.9.2022 to the 3rd respondent,
recommending to terminate the work, at the risk and cost of the
petitioner, and to blacklist the petitioner. According to the petitioner,
in Ext.P13, the Executive Engineer, respondent No.4, made the
recommendation to award the work to an accredited agency or to
execute the work through the Department, with malafide and
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
fraudulent motives. The petitioner, on receipt of Ext.P13, submitted
Exhibit P14 representation dated 12.9.2022 to the Superintending
Engineer, respondent No.3, reiterating the request made in Ext.P9
representation.
12. Anyhow, as per Ext.P13 letter dated 13.09.2022, the
Superintending Engineer issued Exhibit P15 letter dated 30.9.2022,
directing the petitioner to commence the work within 7 days, failing
which it was cautioned that coercive action would be initiated against
him. The petitioner, on receipt of Ext.P15, submitted Exhibit P16
representation dated 10.10.2022 before the Superintending Engineer
requesting to get the approval for revision of estimate to enable the
petitioner to commence the work. However, the Superintending
Engineer issued Exhibit P17 letter dated 30.11.2022 directing the
petitioner to commence the work within 7 days, failing which it was
specified that the work would be rearranged at his risk and cost.
13. Again, the petitioner has submitted Exhibit P18 representation
dated 05.12.2022 before the Superintending Engineer, respondent
No.3, reiterating the request made in Exhibits P9 and P14
representations seeking to revise the schedule of work attached to the
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
agreement, increasing the width of the road from 5.5 meters to 8
meters, enabling the petitioner to commence the work.
14. Since no action was taken by the Superintending Engineer,
petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No. 40025 of 2022 before this Court. This
Court, as per the judgment dated 9.12.2022, directed the
Superintending Engineer to consider Ext.P18 representation and pass a
reasoned order, after providing an opportunity hearing to the
petitioner, within two weeks, by keeping in abeyance all coercive
actions.
15. Accordingly, the petitioner was heard and the request made
by the petitioner was rejected as per Exhibit P21 communication dated
05.01.2023 terminating the contract awarded to the petitioner. Later,
the Superintending Engineer issued Exhibit P22 inter-departmental
communication dated 07.01.2023, to the Chief Engineer, respondent
No.2, apparently on the basis of the communication issued by the
Chief Engineer consequent to the letter submitted by the petitioner
contractor. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of
Exhibit P21, the writ petition is filed.
16. The Assistant Executive Engineer, respondent No.5, has
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
filed a counter affidavit refuting the claims and demands raised by the
petitioner and also narrating the circumstances that led to the
termination of the previous contract, and the reasons for the present
impugned order.
17. According to the 5th respondent, the width of the road
proposed to be constructed is 3.80 meters (width of tarring portion)
and not 3.50 meters as claimed by the petitioner. The proposal was
made for improving the road to BM and BC standards with a 3.80
meters wide carriage way. That apart, construction of concrete drains,
concrete culverts, side protection works, traffic safety works etc. were
also included in the sanctioned estimate. But, when the work was
started by the previous contractor, the people of the locality and the
MLA requested the Department to form the carriage way (Tarring
width) to 5.50 meters instead of 3.80 meters proposed in the
estimate.
18. The Department has agreed to consider the proposal made
by the local people and MLA and submitted a revised estimate for the
work for obtaining sanction. At that point of time, the original
contractor was doing the road formation work; but, the work was very
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
slow and therefore the Department had to terminate the contract at
the risk and cost of the contractor. It seems, consequent to the
termination, the proposed revised estimate also was cancelled and the
Department had decided to carry out the work as envisaged in the
original sanctioned estimate with 3.80 meter-wide road and the
balance work awarded to the petitioner was tendered accordingly.
19. Therefore, according to the respondent No. 5, the contentions
made by the petitioner relying upon the provisions of PWD manual is
correct, but the same has no relevance to the work awarded to the
petitioner. The sum and substance of the contention advanced is that
the attempt of the petitioner is to make out a case on the basis of the
claim raised by the previous contractor for revision of estimate on the
basis of the earlier demand for widening the carriage way to 5.50
meters, which is not in force at all, since the same was cancelled after
the termination of the previous contract. Therefore, according to the
5th respondent, the petitioner has not made out a case of arbitrariness
or illegality.
20. That apart, it is stated that if any of the quantities so
worked out exceeds the quantities in the agreement, the contractor is
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
bound to execute the said items of work at his agreed rates till 125%
of the agreed quantity and he is entitled to get negotiated rates for
quantities executed above 125% based on agreement conditions.
Therefore, the respondent No. 5 seeks dismissal of the writ petition,
21. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner reiterating the
stand adopted in the writ petition and also relying upon other
provisions of the PWD Manual.
22. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Babu
Joseph Kuruvathazha and the learned Special Government Pleader Sri.
K.V. Manoj Kumar and perused the pleadings and material on record.
23. The deliberation of facts made above would make it clear that
the petitioner has taken up the work in question after termination of a
previous contract. It is an admitted fact that pursuant to Exhibit P1
selection notice, the petitioner has executed an agreement with the
Superintending Engineer, respondent No.3 and therefore, he is bound
by the agreement conditions.
24. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the petitioner
is relying upon Exhibit P3 proforma of the work issued by the
Superintending Engineer as against the contract with the previous
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
contractor and the consequent detailed estimate in regard to the
same. This is a case where, even though consequent to the request of
the Member of Legislative Assembly, a proposal was made to widen
the carriageway to 5.8 meters and a detailed estimate was prepared,
while the work was being carried out by the previous contractor, it was
terminated consequent to the slow progress of the work.
25. Later, the proposal made for widening the carriageway was
given up and the tender was invited with the carriageway of 3.8
meters. Therefore, the petitioner participated in the tender knowing
well the nature of the work to be carried out. Even though in the
communication issued by the Superintending Engineer and other
authorities, it is stated that the level was to be done as 8 meters from
5.50 meters, it never directed the petitioner to carry out any work by
extending the level to 5.50 meters and further to 8 meters. The level
was directed to be shown for other purposes other than any
development work of the road. Therefore, the contention advanced by
the petitioner that consequent to the change of level and the directions
issued by the respondents to submit the initial levels at 5.50 meters
and later to 8 meters would enable the petitioner for revision of
estimate, cannot be sustained, since it does not contemplate the
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
widening of the carriageway as originally provided from 3.80 meters.
26. The petitioner has heavily relied upon Exhibit P22 inter-
departmental correspondence by and between the Superintending
Engineer and the Chief Engineer dated 07.01.2023. But, on a perusal
of the same, it is categoric and clear that the Superintending Engineer
had explained the circumstances to the Chief Engineer starting from
the original award of the work to the previous contractor. The
petitioner is attempting to make out a case that without a revision of
estimate, the work cannot be commenced. The said contention
advanced by the petitioner has no foundation at all for the basic
reason that there is no deviation from the award of the contract to the
petitioner as per Exhibit P1 selection notice.
27. It is quite clear and evident from the inter departmental
correspondence that only 9% of the work is completed by the
petitioner. Moreover, the interdepartmental correspondence can never
be said to be a proof at all to arrive at a conclusion with respect to
the case put forth by the petitioner. This I say because, it is only a
correspondence issued by the Superintending Engineer, respondent
No.3 consequent to certain queries raised by the Chief Engineer on
account of the work in question done by the previous contractor and
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
the circumstances leading to the termination of contract of the
petitioner.
28. In my considered opinion, when the tender was conferred
on the petitioner and the agreement was executed, the petitioner is
duty bound to complete the work as agreed upon by and between the
parties. The petitioner is not at all entitled to take advantage of the
circumstances pointed out by the previous contractor and the previous
proposal for the revision of estimate made by the officials, while the
original tender was being proceeded with. This is more so when the
respondents have decided to retain the width of the carriageway at
3.80 meters. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not carried
out the work as specified in the work order at all, which is clear from
the documents and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner itself.
29. This I say because, while executing an agreement with the
petitioner, it is clear and evident from Exhibit P2 proforma of the work
that a milestone was fixed with regard to the rate of progress and
consequent to which at the end of third month, the petitioner had to
attain 25%; 75% at the end of 6 th month; and 100% at the end of 8 th
month. Therefore, from the pleadings put forth by the petitioner itself,
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
it is quite clear that the petitioner could not attain the milestone
prescribed as per the agreement executed by and between the parties.
It is not in dispute that if the work is not carried out by the petitioner
in terms of the agreement conditions, the tender authority is vested
with ample powers to terminate the work. It was accordingly that
proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.
30. In fact, various communications were issued to the
petitioner to commence the work after preparing initial levels of 5.8
meters and later to 8 meters. But by saying one reason or another, in
order to take advantage of the revision of the estimate recommended
to the previous contractor, consequent to the proposal made by the
MLA as well as the local people, the petitioner submitted
representations. In fact, on the basis of the directions issued by this
Court, they were considered and Exhibit P21 order of termination was
passed assigning reasons.
31. Therefore, the sole question to be considered is whether the
petitioner has made out any case of illegality or arbitrariness or any
other legal infirmities justifying interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In my considered opinion, the factual
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
circumstances make it clear that the petitioner has not made out any
such case and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to secure any
reliefs as are sought for in this writ petition. Therefore, no interference
is required to Exhibit P21 termination order passed by the
Superintending Engineer, respondent No.3. Consequently, the fresh
tender invited by the Superintending Engineer, which is under
challenge in W.P. (C) No. 6039 of 2023, has no legal basis or factual
foundation.
32. The issue with respect to the termination of contract was
considered by the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. M.K. Jose,
(2015) 9 SCC 433], after having a threadbare survey of its
previous relevant judgements on the point, wherein it is held as
follows:
"12. As the factual narration would reveal, the respondent has been
invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution on various occasions challenging every action which pertain to
extension of time, denial of revised estimate by the State Government and
many other facets of that nature and the High Court, we must say, has been
generously passing orders for consideration by the appropriate authority, for
grant of opportunity of being heard to the contractor and to consider his
representation in accordance with law. This kind of orders in a contractual
matter, in our considered view, is ill-conceived. They not only convert the
controversy to a disturbing labyrinth, but encourage frivolous litigation. The
competent authority might have mentioned that more than 50% work remained
to be done but that should not have prompted the Appellate Bench hearing the
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
intra-court appeal to appoint a Commission of two advocates and granting
them liberty to take assistance of a competent engineer. As the Report would
show, the Commission of two advocates have taken assistance of a retired
Assistant Executive Engineer and submitted the Report. Though, the learned
counsel for the State had not objected to the same, yet we really fail to fathom
how a writ jurisdiction can be extended to cause a roving enquiry through a
Commission and rely on the facts collected without granting opportunity to the
State to file objections to the same and in the ultimate eventuate, cancel the
order of termination of contract. What precisely was the quantum of work done
and whether there had been a breach by the owner or the contractor, are
required to be gone into by the appropriate legal forum.
13. A writ court should ordinarily not entertain a writ petition, if there
is a breach of contract involving disputed questions of fact. The present case
clearly indicates that the factual disputes are involved."
33. It may be correct to say that, the writ court, under Article
226 of the Constitution would be justified in interfering with the
termination of the contract, even if factual circumstances are involved
in the matter of termination. However, in my considered opinion, a
prerogative writ would normally be issued by the High Court, if the
State or its instrumentalities has acted in absolute arbitrariness,
illegality or unfairness. This is a case where the respondents have
given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to start the work. But, the
petitioner, by saying baseless and unfounded reasons, has prolonged
the contract, and despite the lapse of several months after the
agreement period, the petitioner could not achieve the milestone;
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
however, he could complete only 9% of the work awarded to him.
Thinking so, I do not think, the petitioner is entitled to get any reliefs
as are sought for in the said writ petition. Since I find that there is no
illeglaity or other legal infirmities in terminating the contract, the
challenge made in the latter writ petition to the re-tender has no
sustenance and accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed.
Upshot of the above discussion is that, the writ petitions fail and
accordingly, they are dismissed.
sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1323/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE DATED 8.4.2022
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA OF THE AGREEMENT
DATED 17.5.2022, SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
AND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA OF THE WORK AWARDED
TO MR. FAIZ M.D., ON EXECUTING AGREEMENT
NO.SE(K)194/2019-20 WITH THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED ESTIMATE OF THE WORK
COMPRISED IN THE AGREEMENT DATED 17.5.2022.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INITIAL LEVELS OF THE WORK
COMPRISED IN EXT.P4 DETAILED ESTIMATE.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.7.2022
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.7.2022 ISSUED BY
THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.7.2022 ISSUED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.7.2022
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.7.2022
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.8.2022
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.8.2022 ISSUED BY
THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.9.2022 SUBMITTED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.9.2022
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.9.2022 ISSUED BY
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
10.10.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.11.2022 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.12.2022
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
DATED 9.12.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.40025/2022.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 26.12.2022 OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.1.2023 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 7.1.2023 OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02-02-2022 IN
WPC 396/2022.
EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE BILL OF QUANTITIES OR THE
AGREEMENT SCHEDULE.
EXHIBIT R5(C) LETTER NO.AE(P)/D3-1008/2022 DATED 19-08-2022
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY 6TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R5(D) PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
True Copy
PS To Judge.
rv
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6039/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE DATED 8.4.2022
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA OF THE AGREEMENT
DATED 17.5.2022, SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
AND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA OF THE WORK AWARDED
TO MR. FAIZ M.D., ON EXECUTING AGREEMENT
NO.SE(K)197/2019-20 DATED 03-02-2020 WITH THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED ESTIMATE OF THE WORK
COMPRISED IN THE AGREEMENT DATED 17.5.2022.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INITIAL LEVELS OF THE WORK
COMPRISED IN EXT.P4 DETAILED ESTIMATE.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.7.2022
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.7.2022 ISSUED BY
THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.7.2022 ISSUED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.7.2022
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.7.2022
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.8.2022
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 `TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.8.2022 ISSUED
BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.9.2022 SUBMITTED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.9.2022
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.9.2022 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
10.10.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.11.2022 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.12.2022
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
DATED 9.12.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.40025/2022.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 26.12.2022 OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO D6.09/2018/9995 DATED
5.1.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.DC
9/PRICE/2018/9995 DATED 7.1.2023 OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 17.1.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO.1323/2023.
EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE RE-TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED
18.2.2023 PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE INITIAL LEVEL (ABSTRACT) OF THE
VADAKUMPAD VANCHIPARA GOPURATHILIDAM ROAD
BETWEEN KM 0/000 TO 3/300 WITH 8 M WIDTH.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 02.02.2022 IN
WPC 396/2022 FILED BY SRI.M D FAIZ
EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE BILL OF QUANTITIES OR THE
AGREEMENT SCHEDULE
EXHIBIT R5(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTERS SENT TO THE PETITIONER
URGING HIM TO SUBMIT THE CORRECTED PROPOSAL.
EXHIBIT R5(D) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
PATHETIC CONDITION OF THE ROAD.
EXHIBIT R5(E) TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER OF THE BALANCE WORK BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT AFTER GETTING APPROVAL FROM
W.P.(C) No. 1323 & 6039 of 2023
THE 2ND RESPONDENT CHIEF ENGINEER ,ROADS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT R5(F) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE TENDER OPENED
ON 04.03 .2023
True Copy
PS To Judge.
rv
