M/S. Rds Projects Ltd vs The State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 9018 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
     WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 17363 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
           M/S. RDS PROJECTS LTD.
           A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, WITH
           ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HO:427, SOMDUTT CHAMBERS-II,
           9, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110066 AND REGIONAL
           OFFICE AT SHIHAB THANGAL ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-
           682019 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. AMIT VARGHESE
           JOSEPH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O DR. JOSEPH VARGHESE., PIN -
           BY ADVS.P.MARTIN JOSE P.,P. PRIJITH,, THOMAS
           P.KURUVILLA, R.GITHESH, AJAY BEN JOSE, MANJUNATH MENON,
           SACHIN JACOB AMBAT, ANNA LINDA EDEN, HARIKRISHNAN S.
           S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)

RESPONDENTS:
     1     THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
           GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM -, PIN - 695001
     2     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PWD ROADS DIVISION GOVERNMENT
           SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM -, PIN - 695001
     3     THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
           OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NH( CENTRAL )
           CIRCLE, VYTTILA, COCHIN-, PIN - 682019

OTHER PRESENT:
           SPL.GP - K.V.MANOJKUMAR

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.08.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

                                  :2:



                           VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
         --     -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
                       W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023
         --     -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
                  Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2023

                             JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P49 order

whereby the petitioner was blacklisted, barring the petitioner

from quoting for any work for a period of 5 years.

The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the above writ

petition are as follows:

2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956 and it is a leading engineering and general

contracting company, offering building solutions for a broad

range of construction and engineering projects since 1992. The

petitioner submits that it has completed over 100 projects

throughout India, out of which 45 projects are in Kerala, of which

23 are construction of bridges. The Petitioner Company has also

received quite a lot of appreciation for its endeavors in the field of

construction and was also awarded for excellence in construction.

It is submitted that the Roads and Bridges Development W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

Corporation (hereinafter referred to as RBDCK) invited tenders

for the construction of a flyover in N.H.66 at Palarivattom,

Ernakulam. The petitioner was awarded the said work being the

lowest tenderer and executed Ext.P3 agreement dated

04.03.2014. The site was handed over on 01.06.2014 and the

work has to be completed within 24 months from the date of

agreement. The petitioner submits that the structural work except

the wearing coat was completed by June 2016 before the onset of

the monsoon. The petitioner submits that since the inauguration

of the flyover was scheduled to be held on 12.10.2016, the

petitioner was forced to complete the wearing coats in monsoon

period itself. Therefore, the petitioner completed the work by

20.09.2016. In view of the urgency, bituminous wearing coats

were done in wet conditions and therefore the wearing coat

compaction by maintaining temperature was not possible and this

resulted in developing potholes and the bituminous layer got

damaged progressively due to the increase in traffic. Due to the

development of potholes, water stagnation and dust collection

occurred on the expansion joints, thereby choking the movement W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

of deck continuity expansion joints. As deck continuity joints were

not functioning, additional stress developed in girders and pier

caps. The petitioner also submits that there was an error in the

approved drawings in the placement of bearings in 2 spans, P9-

P10, P18-AP2. Since the above said defects happened due to the

formation of the potholes and stagnation of water could be

remedied forthwith, the matter was reported to the structural

consultant, M/s. Nagesh Consultancy for their expert advice. The

consultant inspected the site along with the representatives of

RBDCK and KITCO and forwarded their drawings for the

rectification of joints. A review meeting was held by RBDCK on

16.11.2016 and as per Ext.P5 minutes, it was decided to take

corrective steps to rectify the expansion joints between two strip

seal expansion joints. As per the decision in the meeting held on

16-11-2016, the balance drain works were started on 18.11.2016.

Based on the views of the consultant, Exts.P6 and P7 requests

were made by the petitioner, but the same was not considered

and permission for rehabilitation as suggested in Exts. P6 and P7

at its own costs was never heeded to, but the traffic continued to W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

ply. Thereupon, Ext.P8 communication was also sent by the

petitioner. In Ext.P8, it was also intimated that purchase orders

were placed with M/s. Sanfield India Pvt. Ltd. for the supply of

the bearings and the materials were fabricated and ready for

inspection. Later on, the POT bearing and strip seal expansion

joints required for replacement at deck continuity joints were

tested by the manufacturers on 10.10.2017 and 11.10.2017 at the

factory of M/s. Sanfield India Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal in the presence of

the representatives of the Government and RBDCK. It was also

informed that the deck continuity joint is not withstanding the

traffic and it was decided to introduce strip seal expansion joint.

By Ext.P9 the test result of M/s. Sanfield and the mobilization of

specialized agency were also brought to the notice of RBDCK and

KITCO. As requested by the petitioner, Dr. Aravindan, retired

professor of IIT and Head of M/s.Sree Giri Consultants along with

his team inspected the flyover on 07.11.2016 and 29.10.2017 and

prepared a detailed structural design check and submitted

Ext.P11 report before the RBDCK. Even though as per Clause

20.2 of the agreement dated 04.03.2014, it is the responsibility of W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

the petitioner to rectify any defects during the defect liability

period at his own cost to the satisfaction of Engineer/KITCO, in

spite of intimation to RBDCK through several communications

regarding the nature of defects and the methodology to rectify the

same, RBDCK never took any action or any steps so as to enable

the petitioner to execute such works at its expense. On the basis

of the same, it is contended by the petitioner that RBDCK has

committed breach of contract and that the petitioner is never

liable to rectify or compensate with regard to any defects which

are the result of blatant violation of provisions of the agreement

executed with RBDCK. Without considering the various proposals

submitted by the petitioner for rehabilitation of the flyover which

was approved by the Engineer, the RBDCK engaged IIT Madras to

carry out the assessment of the condition of the flyover and to

suggest the rehabilitation measures. The IIT Madras after

conducting a scientific study approved the methodology for

bearing replacement for span P18-AP2 submitted by KITCO. By

Ext.P12 letter dated 19.03.2019, IIT Madras informed the RBDCK

about the corrected methodology submitted by the Engineer W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

approved by IIT Madras. Thereupon by letter dated 28.03.2019,

RBDCK directed the petitioner to conduct the repairs as per the

methodology suggested by KITCO and approved by IIT Madras in

its letter dated 19.03.2019. The petitioner submits that the

methodology approved by IIT Madras was the same in essence as

the methodology submitted by the petitioner and the inordinate

delay in engaging IIT Madras and approving the methodology was

not attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that

even the report of IIT Madras only recommended for

rehabilitation of the flyover since the flyover was not in such

distress so as to be demolished. RBDCK, despite the long requests

of the petitioner for traffic closure, finally by Ext.P14 letter

intimated the petitioner for the traffic closure with effect from

01.05.2019. The petitioner completed the repairs as instructed by

the IIT as suggested in Ext.P13 under the supervision of IIT and

RBDCK and the expert panel of three Chief Engineers deputed by

the State. The petitioner expended Rs.2.63 Crores for the repair

works. All the repair works as specified by RBDCK were

commenced on 01.05.2019 and completed on 02.06.2019 under W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

the supervision of the representatives of the Engineer and Dr. P.

Alagasundaramoorthy of IIT, Madras except for the expansion

joint of the span P18-AP2, since the work was stopped by RBDCK.

The petitioner by Ext.P15 letter informed RBDCK and KITCO that

the site was ready for the replacement of the final bearing in span

P18-AP2 and sought permission for the completion of all the

rectification works by 05.08.2019. The petitioner, again by

Ext.P16 dated 18.09.2019 intimated RBDCK for completion of the

balance work of the expansion joint at span P18-AP2, but no reply

or response has been evoked to the said letters. Petitioner

submits that it appears that being dissatisfied with the inspection

report and remedial measures of IIT Madras, the Government of

Kerala sought clarification from Dr. E Sreedharan, the Principal

Advisor of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and that Dr. E

Sreedharan without conducting much scientific study and even

without conducting any physical verification submitted reports

dated 03.07.2019, 14.09.2019 and 19.09.2019 contrary to the

report of IIT Madras. Dr. E. Sreedharan, submitted a

recommendation dated 03.07.2019 before the Government of W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

Kerala for the rehabilitation of the bridge by dismantling 17 RCC

spans and to replace with PSC girders. Thereby Government of

Kerala constituted a committee to examine the reports of IIT

Madras and Dr. E.Sreedharan and the committee so constituted,

without conducting any scientific study, submitted a report dated

04.10.2019. Without reference to the contractual obligations in

pursuance of the agreement dated 04.03.2014, and especially

Clause 49.2(b), Clause 49.4 and Clause 50.1 of Part I of the

General Conditions of the contract, the Government of Kerala as

per Ext.P17 order dated 25.10.2019 accepted the

recommendation of the technical committee, appointed by the

Government to resolve the dispute in the conflicting reports of IIT

Madras and Dr. E Sreedharan, and further accepted the offer of

DMRC to take over the bridge for rehabilitation and further

directed the RBDCK to realize the loss sustained from the

petitioner in the light of the reports of IIT Madras, Dr.

E.Sreedharan and FIR in vigilance case No.1 of 2019 of the Court

of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Muvattupuzha. The

petitioner has a specific case that if at all any rehabilitation of the W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

flyover is required, necessarily RBDCK has to invoke Clause

49.2(b) of Part I of the General Conditions of Contract. As a

matter of fact, after obtaining the report of the Technical

Committee, the Government of Kerala has accepted the offer of

DMRC for rehabilitation of the Flyover, which is in total violation

of the above-stated clause in the agreement executed between the

petitioner and RBDCK. The petitioner challenged Ext.P17 order

by filing W.P.(c) No. 30487 of 2019 and this Court was pleased to

stay all coercive action including the attachment of the bank

account of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed another writ

petition, WP(C) No.26030 of 2019 seeking a direction to conduct

a load test on the bridge. The above writ petition came up for

hearing along with other writ petitions on 21.11.2019 and this

Court as per Ext.P19 common order directed the Government to

conduct load test of the Palarivattom Flyover at the expense of

the petitioner. Aggrieved by Ext.P19, the Government approached

the Apex Court in SLP(Civil) Nos.3008-3015 of 2020. The Apex

Court as per Ext.P20 judgment set aside Ext.P19 common order

passed by this Court directing to conduct load test. Pursuant to W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

Ext.P20 judgment by the Apex Court, the Government of Kerala

issued Ext.P21 Order granting administrative sanction for the

rehabilitation of the Palarivattom Flyover through M/s Delhi

Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) with a further direction to realise

the cost of the rehabilitation from the petitioner. The specific

contention of the petitioner is that the Government has no right

or authority to engage DMRC to do the rehabilitation work,

especially when the contract between the petitioner and RBDCK

was subsisting. Petitioner submits that RBDCK committed several

instances of breach of the agreement and has shown reluctance in

permitting the petitioner to carry out the rectification works.

These aspects were pointed out to RBDCK by the petitioner as per

Ext.P22 letter. Since RBDCK has violated the terms and

conditions envisaged in the agreement, the petitioner has filed a

suit as C.S.No.80 of 2021 before the Commercial Court,

Ernakulam seeking recovery of the amount due to the petitioner

and for a declaration that the Government orders dated

25.10.2019 and 07.10.2020 (Exts.P18 to P21) are illegal, ab initio

void and non-est in law. The petitioner further submits that the W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

RBDCK has also instituted a suit as C.S No. 240 of 2022 before

the Commercial Court, Ernakulam for the realization of a sum of

Rs.24,52,22,498/- being the alleged loss incurred in the

demolition and re-construction of the Flyover. Petitioner submits

that in connection with another work tendered by the petitioner,

which was a joint venture, the Government decided to exclude the

L1 bid of the Joint Venture of the petitioner alleging irregularities

and registration of vigilance case in connection with the

construction of the Palarivattom Flyover. Thereupon the

petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 31556

of 2019, which was disposed of as per Ext.P31, wherein it was

held that the blacklisting proceedings shall be initiated and

completed within a time limit and if it is found that the petitioner

is liable to be blacklisted, work involved in the said writ petition

shall be re-tendered and if it is found in the proceedings that the

petitioner is not liable to be blacklisted, the work shall be

awarded to the Joint Venture of the petitioner. Despite the said

direction in Ext.P31 judgment, no steps were taken to blacklist

the petitioner and the work was awarded to the Joint Venture of W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

the petitioner as is evident from Ext.P32. The petitioner further

submits that subsequently, works have been awarded to the

petitioner, as is evident from Exts.P33 to P40. While so, the 3 rd

respondent issued Ext.P42 notice directing the petitioner to

appear before the 3rd respondent to attend a hearing regarding

the initiation of the process of blacklisting the petitioner in

connection with the irregularities found in the construction of

Palarivattom Flyover. Since Ext.P42 did not state the particular

grounds for the initiation of black listing proceedings, the

petitioner approached this Court in W.P(C) No.5722 of 2023

seeking to quash Ext.P42 and this Court was pleased to dispose of

the writ petition as per Ext.P44 judgment directing the

Superintending Engineer, PWD to provide the details with respect

to the blacklisting procedure adopted by the respondents, so as to

enable the petitioner to file a suitable reply. Pursuant to Ext.P44,

the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P45 notice stating the reasons for

initiating blacklisting proceedings against the petitioner and

giving 3 weeks' time to prefer an appropriate reply to the said

notice. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext.P46 reply to the W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

same. Petitioner submits that Ext.P45 notice was issued only to

harass the petitioner and the same is ill-motivated. The 3 rd

respondent has no authority to issue the same when the subject

matter of the dispute is pending consideration before the

competent Civil Court. Ext.P45 is issued only as an eyewash and

to cause hardship to the petitioner. Without considering any of

the contentions in a proper manner, by Ext.P49 order, it was

decided to blacklist the petitioner in connection with the

irregularities in the construction of the Palarivattom Flyover and

the petitioner was barred from quoting for another work for a

period of five years and the "A" class license issued to the

petitioner was also cancelled. The petitioner submits that the

Government acted arbitrarily, and capriciously against the

interest of the public by engaging to demolish the bridge without

any supporting materials. The materials already available on

record eloquently speak of rehabilitation of the bridge and the

decision to demolish flyover is malafide and with sinister motives.

Exts. P45 and P49 are also another move which is politically

motivated and leaving the petitioner a scapegoat to it. The W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

petitioner has undertaken various works in the State of Kerala

and the same are in progress and any coercive action by virtue of

Ext.P45, which itself is without any authority, would cause great

hardship and financial loss to the petitioner. Initiation of action as

is evident from Ext.P49, while civil suits in this regard are

pending consideration before the competent court is an arbitrary

action. Ext.49 is a non-speaking order issued without any

application of mind and was passed on compulsion since RBDCK

apparently recommended the blacklisting of the petitioner. There

was no subjective satisfaction on the part of the 3 rd respondent for

blacklisting and the 3rd respondent has just followed the

recommendations of the RBDCK to blacklist the petitioner. None

of the contentions taken by the petitioner in Ext.P46 reply was

taken into consideration while issuing Ext.P49. The 3 rd respondent

did not take into consideration that a substantial portion of the

repair work was carried out by the petitioner and that the balance

work in respect of one expansion work was abruptly stopped by

the RBDCK and therefore the petitioner cannot be held

responsible for the same. The petitioner further submits that in W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

Ext.P23 counter affidavit, the consultant KITCO had disowned the

report of Dr. E. Sreedharan and also the decision to forgo the load

test and to demolish the flyover. The petitioner has executed all

the works undertaken so far to the full satisfaction of the

employer and has earned goodwill and reputation throughout the

country. Exhibit P49 is ill-motivated solely to tarnish the

reputation of the petitioner for the illegal gains of the

respondents. In support of the contentions, the petitioner relies

on the judgments in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v.

Gordhandas Bhanji (1952 KHC 291), Mohinder Singh Gill

and Another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New

Delhi and others (1978 KHC 478), Chairman and Managing

Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. v. P. C. Kakkar

(2003 KHC 971), U. O. I. and others v. Jai Prakash Singh

and another (2007 KHC 4322), Kulja Industries

Limited(M/s) v. Chief General Manager, W. T. Proj.BSNL

and others (2013 KHC 4798), Tulsi Narayanan Garg v. M. P.

Road Development Authority (2019 SCC online SC 1158),

Ramsons Garments Finishing Equipments Pvt. Ltd(M/s.), W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

Bangalore v. Government of India, Ministry of Railways

(2022 KHC 5175) and the decision in Abcon

Engineering(M/s) v. Superintendent of Engineer [2023 (4)

KHC 501].

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

3rd respondent wherein it is stated that Ext.P49 order has been

issued by the licencing authority after properly assessing the

allegations raised by the implementing authority RBDCK and

after hearing the arguments of the petitioner against the

blacklisting as per the directions of this Court and thereupon

arrived at a decision to proceed with the blacklisting and

cancellation of the licence issued by the licence issuing authority.

Ext.P49 was issued considering the irregularities in the

construction of the Palarivattom Flyover and the same was

mentioned in the order itself. The order issued was not to

damage the reputation and goodwill earned by the contractor in

accepting other projects but only as per the terms of prevailing

rules and conditions of the contract. This blacklisting and licence

cancellation need not affect other ongoing works of the petitioner W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

and they can continue with the ongoing works to full satisfaction

of the respective agreement authorities. Irregularities in

connection with the work were noticed in the year 2019. The

implementing agency of the work ie., RBDCK reported the

allegations and intimated the recommendation to blacklist the

contractor to the Government on 06.11.2020. The subject work

was awarded under the SPEEID project of the Government of

Kerala and aided by the fund of KRFB. There were defects

noticed in the construction undertaken by the petitioner, but the

petitioner did not turn up to rectify the defects of the project in

time. The vigilance enquiry report submitted to the Government

concluded that the flyover is in a dangerous condition. Even

though rectification works under the supervision of IIT Madras

were done, it was found that there is every chance that the

flyover will become a threat to the life and property of the public

at any time. Therefore, the Government had no other option but

to engage other competent agency to rectify the defects and

recover the cost of rectification from the defaulted contractor,

which is specifically mandated as per the general condition of the W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

contract. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau has also

reported as per Ext.R3(c) report that there are serious

irregularities on the part of the contractor in the construction of

the project. The Government engaged a technical evaluation

Committee to assess the proposals of rehabilitation submitted by

the IIT Madras and DMRC and the proposal submitted by the

DMRC ensured a guarantee period of 100 years to the bridge,

which was not present in the proposal submitted by IIT Madras.

Thereupon, the Government approved the recommendation of the

technical committee and opted for the proposal of the DMRC. As

per the general conditions of the contract, if the contractor does

not satisfactorily rectify the defects, the executing agency can

depute any other agency and recover the cost of rectification

from the defaulting contractor. The contractor has filed W.P.

(C)No.30487/2019 and the interim order granted in the said case

prevented the Government from taking any coercive steps against

the contractor including blacklisting. Due to the pendency of the

case, Government could not go ahead with the blacklisting

procedure. Later as per the judgment dated 04.02.2022, this W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

Court dismissed the said writ petition as withdrawn with liberty

to the petitioner to raise the contentions before the civil court.

Thereupon, proceedings were initiated to blacklist and to cancel

the license of the contractor. Since blacklisting proceedings and

the coercive steps, to be taken against the petitioner were stayed

by this Court, further works tendered by the petitioner were

considered on merits and works were awarded to them. Ext.P49

order has been issued after complying with all the procedures

mandated and following the principle of natural justice. The

petitioner was issued with notice and given sufficient time for

submitting his reply and after considering the reply submitted by

the petitioner, Ext.P49 order has been issued and the contract

licence was cancelled on account of poor workmanship as

reported by RBDCK. Petitioner never turned up to rectify the

damages to the Palarivattom Flyover to the satisfaction of the

agreement authority. The contention of the petitioner that

though they were ready to rectify the defects, RBDCK never

acceded to any of the proposals and committed inordinate delay

is not true to the facts. It is the case of RBDCK that despite notice W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

and report submitted by IIT Madras regarding the rectification

works, which is notified to the petitioner, rectification works were

not attended by him, but at the same time under the pretext of

the objection to the report submitted by IIT Madras, petitioner

has not complied with their contractual obligations. It is clear

from the report submitted by the RBDCK and also Ext.R3(c)

report submitted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau,

that only by reconstruction of the bridge to the extent required, it

cannot be put to use. Further contention of the petitioner that

clause 2116.2 of the PWD manual does not contemplate

blacklisting of the petitioner/contractor in the above-said

circumstances of the case, cannot be accepted since pursuant to

the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.21597/2017,

"poor workmanship" also has been incorporated in the Manual as

per Ext.R3(d) Government order, as a reason for blacklisting the

contractors and on the basis of the said contentions raised in the

counter affidavit sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Heard the rival contentions on both sides.

5. The thrust of the contentions raised by the petitioner W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

challenging Ext.P49 is that the defects, if any noticed by the

petitioner, were intimated to the RBDCK as per Exts.P6 and P7

and there was no response from them in this regard and that

even the report of IIT Madras only recommended for

rehabilitation of the flyover since the flyover was not in such

distress so as to be demolished. It could be seen that after

obtaining the inspection report and remedial measures suggested

by IIT Madras, the Government of Kerala sought for a

clarification from Dr. E. Sreedharan, the Principal Advisor of

DMRC and he has submitted a report dated 03.07.2019 before

the Government for rehabilitation of the bridge by dismantling 17

RCC spans and to replace with PSC girders. As there were two

conflicting reports, the Government thought it fit to constitute a

committee to examine the reports of IIT Madras and Dr. E.

Sreedharan and a report to that effect was submitted on

04.10.2019. The Government after verifying both the reports,

issued Ext.P17 order, wherein the issues raised in this writ

petition have been elaborately considered. The relevant portion

of the said report is extracted below:

W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

"IIT Madras explored the possibility of repairing and strengthening the precast RC girders using (i) Concrete jacketing. (ii) Steel jacketing, (iii) External flexural strengthening using CFRP composite pultruded sheets, (iv) Strengthening of girders by near surface mounting (NSM) technique using CFRP composite pultruded sheets, (v) Strengthening of girders by NSM technique using pultruded CFRP composite rebars and (vi) Shear strengthening using carbon fibre fabric composites. The possibility of repairing and strengthening the Piers using (1) Carbon fibre fabric composites and (2) and Concrete jacketing are also explored.

Considering the durability, cost and time to repair and strengthen the precast RC girders the following repair and strengthening scheme is recommended by IIT Madras:

a) Repairing of cracks in precast RC girders and pier caps by injecting low viscous resin.

b) Flexural strengthening of precast RC girders by concrete jacketing.

W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

c) Shear strengthening of precast RC girders using carbon fiber fabric composites.

d) Cross stiffening of precast RC girders using standard steel sections and

e) Repairing of cracks on RC walls in the abutments The total estimated cost for the above mentioned scheme is Rs. 7.31 crores, IIT Madras will issue the execution drawings as per the requirement. Scaffolding, water supply and power supply have to be provided as per the site conditions by RBDCK/RDS.

After repair and strengthening a span and two pier caps, a load test to be conducted and the measured deflection can be checked with the allowable limit to ensure the safety of the bridge. Strict quality control to be ensured during repair and strengthening of the Flyover. All safety procedures for manpower and machines to be ensured by the Applicators"

4.On the basis of press statement made by Dr.E,Sreedharan on the issue, Government have discussed the matter with him. On the basis of discussion he inspected the bridge W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

site and examined the IT report and submitted a report to Government as read 5 above. In the report he noted the following points "The cost of repairs appears to be underestimated. For example, repairing the cracks by resin injection is shown to cost only Rs 28.00 lakhs. This would certainly cost much more as 97 out of 102 girders have developed multiple cracks. Drilling for too many holes for resin injection may further weaken the concrete whose strength is already low and uncertain Shear strengthening of RC girders using carbon fibre wrapping may not bring in the expected benefit as such wrapping does not confine the concrete. If the parent material strength is less than the permitted limit, the wrapping may become a failure. In this case, carbon fibre wrapping alone may not give the required shear strength. The technology of carbon fibre wrapping is new to the country and its life expectancy is also uncertain. They have not mentioned anything about the protection needed for the carbon fibre wrapping since the resins are not stable W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

against ultra violet exposure.

To make up the deficiency in surface reinforcement, nothing is mentioned in the report.

Only the bottom flanges of the RC girders are strengthened by 100mm micro concrete jacketing. The side concrete has no reinforcement shown. This may spall off after some time due to vibration.

Nearly 16 tonne weight is adding in each span for retrofitting scheme. This extra weight (approx. 3 tonne weight in one single girder) will create additional bending moment and shear force in existing distressed girders. Any increase in dead load is not desirable as the four piles in foundation are at their limits.

The concrete jacketing of pier heads has to be more robust to increase their structural strength.

Since the concrete used in the bridge is generally found weak, the stem of the piers has also to be jacketed by RCC. This has not been indicated nor its cost accounted for IIT scheme has not eliminated the expansion joints over the pier locations. The dynamic W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

impact at these joints will therefore continue Dr.Sreedharan has also pointed out that IIT has not indicated what would be the residual life of the bridge after repairs.

                      Pointing   out    the     above   discrepancies
                  noticed in the IIT report,        Dr.E.Sreedharan

suggested to dismantle all the RCC girder spans and replace with pre stressed girders for increased life expectancy of the bridge as indicated in his letter read as 4th above

5. In the light of the above conflicting opinion government decided to constitute a technical committee to examine the reports submitted by IIT Madras and Dr E Sreedharan,and to submit a report to Government. As per government orders read as 2nd above Government have constituted a technical expert committee for this purpose Vide report read as 7th above Technical Expert committee furnished the following recommendations "The tests carried out by IIT Chennai are as per IS codes and IRC recommendations.

IIT Chennai being a premier and reputed institution, their findings can he accepted and relied on. However, a load test as W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

specified in IRC 112:2011 has not been proposed by IIT Chennai. The reasons are not mentioned in their report. The Committee feels that since crack width in certain girders have exceeded the allowable limits which is one of the compliance criteria for load test, IIT might have decided that there is no point in doing a load test before strengthening. However, IIT has recommended load test after strengthening the flyover. IIT has suggested its scheme for strengthening the flyover, which again is as per IRC recommendations. But, IIT has not mentioned the service life of the flyover after strengthening. IRC also does not recommend service life of any structure after doing the strengthening works proposed by IIT.

As mentioned by Dr. E.Sreedharan a new construction with proper design, with quality execution of the work with quality materials and strict technical supervision can expect a service life of 100 years.

Construction cost of the proposal of demolishing and replacing of superstructure as proposed by Dr. E.Sreedharan will cost (18.71 crores), more than double the cost W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

estimated for the strengthening scheme proposed by IIT (7.31 crores). The required completion time for both cases is almost the same. Normally rehabilitation/ strengthening are required for old as well as distressed bridges having service life of 40 years or more and also strengthening works are normally required for limited members or locations of a flyover/bridge. In the case of Palarivattom flyover as per the findings of IIT Chennai, 97 RCC girders out of 102 girders requires strengthening which is an extensive strengthening work for superstructure.

Based on the all the above factors, Committee is of the opinion that considering the service life assured by Dr. E. Sreedharan for 100 years, it is better to accept the proposal by him."

6. Government have examined the whole matter in detail and have decided to accept the recommendations of the Technical Committee and to proceed accordingly.

It is also decided to accept the letter of offer made by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation to take over the bridge for rehabilitation as per letter read as 6th above. DMRC shall W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

submit detailed item wise estimate for approval of Government. On the basis of the detailed estimate, Finance Department shall allot funds in the appropriate Head of Account for the purpose. RBDCK will hand over the bridge site to DMRC free of all encumbrances.

7. RBDCK shall realize the loss sustained to the Government from the contractor in the light of the report of IIT Madras,report of Dr.E Sreedharan and the FIR filed in case No. 1/2019 of Moovattupuzha Vigilance Court and as per the relevant provisions of the agreement. RBDCK shall also initiate action against the contractor for the lapses as per PWD Manual

A perusal of Ext.P17 would reveal that Dr. E. Sreedharan's report

in this regard was on the basis of an inspection conducted by him

at the bridge site and not as contended by the petitioner that the

said report has been submitted without any study or even an

inspection. As per the report of IIT Madras, 97 out of 102 girders

have developed multiple cracks and drilling too many holes for

resin injection may further weaken the concrete whose strength W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

is already low and uncertain and thereupon Dr. E. Sreedharan

suggested dismantling all RCC girder spans and to replace with

pre-stressed girders for increased life expectancy of the bridge.

A perusal of Ext.P17 would also reveal that the technical

committee was constituted in the light of the conflicting opinion

by the IIT, Madras and Dr. E. Sreedharan. The technical

committee has found that even though IIT Madras has

recommended certain rectification methods, they have not

suggested for a load test and the committee after examining the

same, opined that since crack width in certain girders has

exceeded the allowable limits which is one of the compliance

criteria for load test, IIT might have decided that there is no point

in doing a load test before strengthening and recommended for a

load test after the strengthening is over. The technical

committee appointed by the Government found that the IIT has

not mentioned the service life of the flyover after strengthening,

whereas in Dr. E.Sreedharan's report, new construction with

proper design with quality execution of the work with quality

materials and strict technical supervision can expect a service life W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

of 100 years. The committee further examined that the required

completion time for both rectification work and the demolition

and replacing the superstructure as proposed by Dr. E.

Sreedharan takes almost the very same time limit. The

committee after examining both reports came to the opinion that

normally rehabilitation/strengthening is required for old as well

as distressed bridges having service life of 40 years or more and

also strengthening works are normally required for limited

members or locations of a flyover/bridge and in the case of

Palarivattom flyover as per the findings of IIT Madras, 97 RCC

girders out of 102 girders requires strengthening which is an

extensive strengthening work for a superstructure. Based on all

the above factors, Committee opined that considering the service

life assured by Dr. E. Sreedharan for 100 years, it is better to

accept the proposal by him and the said findings and

recommendations of the technical committee were accepted by

the Government as per Ext.P17. In Ext.P17, there was a further

direction that RBDCK shall initiate action against the contractor

for the lapses as per the PWD manual. A perusal of Ext.P17 W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

would reveal that Dr. E. Sreedharan has submitted the report

after conducting a thorough study and after conducting a site

inspection. One crucial aspect is to be noted that even going by

the report of the IIT Madras, 97 RCC girders out of 102 girders

require strengthening. The serious damage affecting to almost

97 RCC girders out of 102 girders, is a very serious aspect to be

taken note of, especially in the case of a bridge the construction

of which was completed only during 2016 and Ext.P17 report is in

2019, almost after a period of three years. The Government

while issuing Ext.P17 did not automatically accept the report of

Dr. E. Sreedharan. It is also to be noted that Ext.P17 was

challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C) No.30487/2019.

Though initially there was a stay of coercive action including

attachment of the bank account of the petitioner, the said writ

petition was disposed of as per judgment dated 04.02.2022,

wherein the petitioner sought dismissal of the writ petition as

withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to raise all legal and

factual contentions available, before the civil court. Though a

suit has been filed by the petitioner as C.S. No.80/2021 wherein a W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

challenge is also made against Ext.P17 and Ext P21 Government

Orders, no interim order has been granted. In view of the above,

the decision of the Government as per Ext.P17 order whereby the

Government has decided to accept the report of Dr. E.

Sreedharan and to take coercive action against the petitioner as

per the PWD manual is after conducting a proper study and in

accordance with the law.

6. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that the

petitioner has been entrusted with the other contract works even

after the defects were noticed by the Government in respect of

the Palarivattom flyover. The specific contention of the learned

Government Pleader in the counter affidavit is that after issuance

of Ext.P17, whereby direction was issued to RBDCK to initiate

action against the contractor/petitioner for lapse as per PWD

manual, further action was stayed as per Ext.P18 interim order

dated 12.11.2019 in W.P.(C) No.30487/2019 and the said writ

petition was disposed of only as per order dated 04.02.2022 and

it is only for the reason that the impugned order has been stayed

by this Court, the petitioner was permitted to undertake another W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

works tendered by him. In view of the same, the said contention

raised by the petitioner is only to be rejected.

7. Further contention raised by the petitioner is that if any

defect has been noticed as per the general conditions of the

contract, the petitioner ought to have been entrusted the duty of

remedying the defects and since the same has been entrusted to

the third agency, the petitioner cannot be held liable for any loss

sustained. The learned Government Pleader on the strength of

the counter affidavit would submit that it is informed by the

RBDCK that despite notice and reports submitted by IIT Madras,

regarding the rectification work notified to the petitioner, the

rectification works were not attempted by him, but at the same

time under the pretext of an objection to the report submitted by

IIT Madras, petitioner has not complied with the contractual

obligations and it is in the said circumstance that further

rectification work was entrusted to a third party, which is well

within the power of the Government and the Departmental

authorities to do so. In view of the same, the contention taken by

the petitioner in this regard is only to be repelled. W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

8. Yet another contention raised by the petitioner is that

while issuing Ext.P49, there is total non-application of mind and

Ext.P45 show cause notice was issued only based on the decision

of RBDCK to blacklist the petitioner. A perusal of Ext.P45 would

reveal that in the 85th meeting held on 14.10.2020 by the Board of

Directors of RBDCK, the Board decided to furnish certain

recommendations to the Government, which is extracted below.

Blacklisting of Contractor The contractor M/s RDS Projects Ltd is to be blacklisted on grounds of poor workmanship and bar them from taking part in the future tenders of this company and request that Government may issue directions to the concerned license issuing departments /authorities for actions as per PWD Manual to cancel the license of the firm

2. Realisation of Rehabilitation Cost RBDCK intends to recover the costs from the Contractor based on

a) Cost estimated for the strengthening scheme proposed by IIT

b) Construction cost of the proposal of W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

demolishing and replacing of superstructure

c) Loss sustained to Government as per the FIR filed in case No.1/2019 of Muvattupuzha Vigilance Court.

It is also pertinent to note that in Ext.P17 the Government while

entrusting rehabilitation works to DMRC has also directed the

RBDCK to initiate action against the contractor for the lapse as

per the PWD Manual and it is based on the same that the RBDCK

has decided to take steps to blacklist the contractor for poor

workmanship. It is pursuant to the said recommendation that the

details of the allegation against the petitioner was submitted by

the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P45, which contains all the details

of the allegations against the petitioner. It is seen that a detailed

reply was also submitted by the petitioner as Ext.P46 and only

after considering the same that Ext.P49 decision was taken,

which is impugned in this writ petition. I am unable to accept the

argument of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner that it is solely based on the decision of the RBDCK

that further proceedings were initiated to blacklist the petitioner.

It is true that RBDCK has recommended for blacklisting the W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

contractor but it is for the 3rd respondent who is the licencing

authority to take action for blacklisting and for cancellation of

PWD contractor's licence. Thereafter, it could be seen that 3 rd

respondent has issued show cause notice and details of

allegations against the petitioner and thereafter objections were

called for and it is only considering the objections filed by the

petitioner that Ext.P49 order was issued. Only for the reason

that one of the authorities has recommended for taking action

against the petitioner will not by itself invalidate the proceedings

on the ground that the same was initiated as per the dictation of

another authority and therefore there is total non application of

the mind. As stated above, Ext P49 order was issued by the

competent authority, the 3rd respondent, after complying with all

the procedural formalities. The learned Government Pleader

relies on the judgment in State of Odisha and others v. Panda

Infra Project Ltd [(2022) 4 SCC 393]. Paragraph 17 of the

said judgment reads as follows:

17. Merely because the show-cause notice was issued after the inquiry committee report was considered and thereafter the W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

State Government took the decision to initiate proceedings for blacklisting, that by itself cannot be said that the order of blacklisting was pre-determined as observed by the High Court. The communication dated 10-10-2017 by the State Government to the Chief Engineer can be said to be a proposed decision to initiate the proceedings for blacklisting. In the communication dated 10-10-2017, it has been specifically mentioned that the action be taken for blacklisting after following the procedure as per the OPWD Code.

In view of the same, I am not inclined to accept the said

contention of the petitioner that there is no application of mind

before issuance of Ext.P49 and that the 3 rd respondent acted

solely based on the report/recommendation of the RBDCK.

8. Further contention raised by the petitioner is that this is a

disputed question of fact and that civil suits are pending, one filed

by the petitioner and the other by the RBDCK and therefore,

while the suits are pending consideration, the decision taken by

the Government to blacklist the petitioner as per Ext.P49 is W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

arbitrary and unjust. In support of the contention, the petitioner

relies on the judgment in Tulsi Narayan Garg's case cited

(Supra). That was a case where the question decided was as to

whether the liquidated damages assessed by the officer could be

recovered when the matter is pending adjudication before the

Arbitral Tribunal and the court held that since once the dispute is

pending adjudication before the Arbitral Tribunal, the respondent

was not justified in raising demand on termination of the

contract, claiming liquidated damages and the respondent cannot

become an arbiter of his own cause and unless the dispute is

settled by a procedure prescribed under the law, the respondent

would not be held to be justified in initiating revenue recovery

proceedings invoking the procedure under the Land Revenue Act.

I am afraid the said judgment cannot apply in the facts and

circumstances of the present case because that was a case where

the court was considering whether any revenue recovery

proceedings could be initiated based on the quantification of

liquidated damages assessed by the officer while the said dispute

was pending consideration before the Arbitral Tribunal. The W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

present case is one which where the petitioner was blacklisted

after complying with due procedures as prescribed by law and

therefore, the said judgment is not applicable in the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

9. The petitioner has taken a further contention that Ext.P49

is not a reasoned order and there is no subjective satisfaction on

the part of the 3rd respondent for blacklisting the petitioner.

Petitioner further contended that the punishment imposed is

harsh and therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with. In

support of his contention, the petitioner relies on the judgment in

Gordhandas Bhanji & Mohinder Singh Gill's cases cited

(Supra) which held that reasons should be stated in the order

itself and the same cannot be substituted by way of averments in

the counter affidavit. The petitioner also relies on the judgment

in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial

Bank and Others' case cited (Supra) to contend for the position

that if the court feels that the punishment is shockingly

disproportionate, the same is liable to be interfered with. The

petitioner further submits on the basis of the decision in Kulja W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

Industries Ltd 's case cited (Supra) that before the authority

passes an order of blacklisting, is required to give a fair hearing

and since none of the contentions raised by the petitioner was

properly considered, Ext.P49 order is liable to be interfered with.

The petitioner also relies on the judgment in Jai Praksh Singh

and another's case cited (Supra) in support of the said

contention. Petitioner also relies on the judgment in Abcon

Engineering's case (Supra) to contend for the position that the

show cause notice should contain the details of the allegation

against which the blacklisting is proposed and since the show

cause notice does not disclose any of the reasons for initiating

blacklisting proceedings against the petitioner, the decision as

per Ext.P49 is liable to be interfered with. Petitioner also relies on

the judgment in Ramson Garment Finishing Equipments Pvt.

Ltd, Bangalore's case (Supra) that due to the severity of the

effects of blacklisting, the law requires strict adherence to the

principle of natural justice and that in an action of blacklisting the

person/entity concerned is required to be duly notified of the

charges levelled against him/it and the consequences that may W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

follow if the charges are proved, give adequate opportunity to the

person/entity against whom such allegations are made to put

forth his/its say and the order under which blacklisting is imposed

should disclose adequate reasons for imposing such punishment

after considering/dealing with the various responses/explanations

given by the person/entity against whom the allegation is made. I

am of the opinion that none of the decisions cited supra could

come to the help of the petitioner. Though Ext.P17 order which

recommended RBDCK to initiate action against the petitioner for

the lapses as per PWD manual, was challenged before this Court

in W.P.(C)No.30487/2019, the same was ultimately dismissed as

withdrawn and no interim orders were granted by the civil court

wherein Ext.P17 order was subsequently challenged after the

dismissal of the writ petition. Another important aspect to be

considered is that even though the petitioner approached this

Court seeking for a load test to be conducted and the same was

allowed as per Ext.P19 order of this Court, the Apex Court

interfered in the matter and set aside Ext.P19 as per Ext.P20

judgment and paragraph 8 and 9 of the said judgment reads as W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

follows:

8) Having perused the High Court judgment, what is clear is that the High Court, instead of applying the well-established parameters of judicial review and ascertaining whether the decision of the State Government would violate Article 14, went into the matter itself and stated that it is better to have a "load test conducted to avoid any further controversy in the matter".

9) Given the fact that an Expert Committee, which is a High level Committee of five experts was set up to go into the divergent opinions of IIT Madras and Dr. E. Sreedharan, and the experts having come to a particular conclusion, it is very difficult then to say that the Government, in accepting such Expert Committee Report, could be said to have behaved arbitrarily. On this ground alone, we set aside the judgment of the High Court, as also the review judgment.

Therefore, the Apex Court has also accepted the decision of the

Government in Ext.P17 order which is based on a high-level

technical committee report. It is only thereafter that Ext.P29 W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

order was issued by the Government whereby administrative

sanction was granted to undertake rehabilitation work of the

Palarivattom flyover at Ernakulam through DMRC and a direction

was issued to RBDCK to initiate proceedings for recovery of the

cost of the rehabilitation work from the petitioner. It is seen that

Ext.P42 notice of hearing was issued to the petitioner. Thereupon,

the petitioner approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.5722/2023

which was disposed of as per Ext.P44 judgment directing the

respondent licensing authority to provide the details with respect

to the blacklisting procedure adopted by the respondent so as to

enable the petitioner to file a suitable reply and to grant 3 weeks'

time to file a proper reply. Pursuant to the directions in Ext.P44,

Ext.P45 detailed allegations against the petitioner was submitted

by the 3rd respondent and has granted 3 weeks' time to file an

appropriate reply. The petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P46

reply to the allegations raised in Ext.P45. It is only after

considering the objections submitted by the petitioner that a

decision was taken as per Ext.P49 to blacklist the petitioner on

the ground of 'poor workmanship' and for the reason that the W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

petitioner did not rectify the damages that occurred to the

Palarivattom flyover.

10. After considering all these aspects and after hearing

both sides, I am of the opinion that sufficient opportunity has

been granted to the petitioner to explain his case and only

thereafter that Ext.P49 was issued and valid reasons have been

stated by the authority to blacklist the petitioner. It is also

pertinent to note that pursuant to the judgment of this Court in

W.P.(C) No.21597/2017, as per Ext.R3(d) Government Order, the

Government have taken steps to amend the PWD manual to

include 'poor workmanship' as also a reason to blacklist a

contractor. I am of the considered opinion that the said ground is

very much available with the respondents to blacklist the

contractors inasmuch as the damage has been caused to the

bridge within 3 years after its construction. There is a clear

finding in the report of the experts that normally

rehabilitation/strengthening is required for old as well as

distressed bridges having service life of 40 years or more and also

strengthening works are normally required for limited members W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

or locations of a flyover/bridge. Going by the report of IIT Madras

itself, 97 RCC girders out of 102 girders require strengthening,

which is an extensive strengthening work for a super structure. It

is taking all these aspects into consideration, the Government

decided to demolish that portion of the bridge and to reconstruct

the same and also to initiate coercive steps against the petitioner.

11. It is pertinent to note that the Government has expended

a huge amount from the state exchequer for the construction of

the bridge which is nothing but the tax payers' money. Damages

of very serious nature have been found by the experts in the said

flyover within a short span of 3 years from its construction.

Ultimately the Government as per the advice of the expert had to

demolish a portion of the bridge and reconstructed the same

again expending a huge amount from the tax payer's money.

Taking all these aspects into consideration and on a finding

that Ext.P49 order has been issued after complying with all

procedural formalities, I am of the opinion that the action

initiated by the Government as per Ext.P49 to blacklist the

petitioner is perfectly in accordance with law and I find no reason W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

to interfere with the same and the above writ petition is

accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sm/ W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17363/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF LIST OF BRIDGES CONSTRUCTED BY THE PETITIONER IN KERALA Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF COMPLETE PROFILE OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 04-03-2014 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RBDCK Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF PROJECT REVIEW MEETING HELD ON 01-09-2016 WITH RBDCK Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 16-11-2016 BY THE RBDCK Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23-11-2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE KITCO Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 13-01-2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO RBDCK AND KITCO Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 27-09-

2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO RBDCK AND KITCO Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18-10-2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO RBDCK AND KITCO Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 05-12-2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO RBDCK AND KITCO Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF M/S.SREE GIRI CONSULTANTS DATED 17-02-2018 Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19-03-2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO RBDCK AND W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

KITCO Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28-03-2019 ISSUED BY THE RBDCK TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 26-04-2019 ISSUED BY THE RBDCK Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 29-07-2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO RBDCK AND KITCO Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18-09-2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO RBDCK Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS).

NO.52/2019/PWD DATED 25-10-2019 Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12-11-2019 IN W.P(C).NO.30487 OF 2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 21-11-

2019 IN W.P.(C).NO.26030 OF 2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 22-09-2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3008-3015 OF 2020 OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT).NO.815/2020/PWD DATED 07-10-2020 Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10-12-2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO RBDCK Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE KITCO IN W.P.(C).NO.26030 OF 2019 FILED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT AS C.S.NO.80 OF 2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

COMMERCIAL COURT, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA IN C.S.NO.80 OF 2021 BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL COURT, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RBDCK IN C.S.NO.80 OF 2021 BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL COURT, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE KITCO IN C.S.NO.80 OF 2021 BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL COURT, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1 OF 2021 IN C.S.NO.80 OF 2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL COURT , ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P29 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT AS C.S.NO.240 OF 2022 FILE BY RBDCK BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL COURT,ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P30 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN C.S.NO.240 OF 2022 FILED BY RBDCK BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL COURT, ERNAKULAM Exhibit P31 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 04-05-2020 IN W.P.(C).NO.31556 OF 2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P32 TRUE COPY OF LOA DATED 28-09-2020 ISSUED BY KSTP Exhibit P33 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF AWARD DATED 16-09-

2020 ISSUED BY SMART CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM LTD.

Exhibit P34 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED 21-09-2020 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF KSTP W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

Exhibit P35 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED 01-10-2020 ISSUED BY KSTP Exhibit P36 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED 30-10-2020 ISSUED BY KSTP Exhibit P37 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED 17-03-2022 ISSUED BY PETRONET LNG LIMITED Exhibit P38 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED 08-02-2023 ISSUED BY COCHIN SHIPYARD Exhibit P39 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED 24-08-2022 ISSUED BY COCHIN PORT AUTHORITY Exhibit P40 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED 03-03-2022 ISSUED BY NHAI Exhibit P41 TRUE COPY OF CONSOLIDATED LIST OF THE WORKS BEING UNDERTAKEN PRESENTLY BY THE PETITIONER IN THE STATE OF KERALA Exhibit P42 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 08-02-2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P43 TRUE COPY OF COVER CONTAINING EXHIBIT.P42 Exhibit P44 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20-02-2023 IN W.P(C) NO. 5722 OF 2023.

Exhibit P45 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 05-05-20203 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER Exhibit P46 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 26-05-2023 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P47 TRUE COPY OF PWD LICENSE RENEWED UPTO 31-

03-2023 Exhibit P48 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 04-02-2022 IN W.P.(C). No.17363 of 2023

W.P.(C).NO.30487 OF 2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P49 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SECCNH/153/2022-F2-PWD DATED 27-06- 2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R3(a) True copy of the hearing notice dated 08.02.2023 Exhibit R3(b) True copy of the letter No.RBDCK T 123 Vol.IX/1979 dated 06.11.2020 Exhibit R3(c) A true copy of the report of vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau Exhibit R3(d) A True copy of the G.O.(Rt) No.552/2020/PWD dated 23.06.2020