Kerala High Court
Muhammed Kunhi vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2023
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 20TH MAGHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 20387 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED KUNHI,
AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O. MOIDEEN KUNHI, THOTTY HOUSE, CHANGLA,
KALLINKOOTTAM, THEKKAL FERRY P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT -
671 541.
BY ADVS.
GEORGE MATHEW
M.D.SASIKUMARAN
MATHEW K.T.
SUNIL KUMAR A.G
GEORGE K.V.
PRAVEEN S.
DIPU JAMES
STEPHY K REGI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.
3 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PUBLIC HEALTH CIRCLE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 033.
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
SEWERAGE DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PATTOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.
5 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
SEWERAGE SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PATTOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.
BY ADV GEORGIE JOHNY, SC
SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2023,
ALONG WITH WP(C).20699/2022, THE COURT ON 09.02.2023 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
:2:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 20TH MAGHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 20699 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED KUNHI,
AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O. MOIDEEN KUNHI, THOTTY HOUSE,CHANGLA,
KALLINKOOTTAM, THEKKAL FERRY P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT -
671 541.
BY ADVS.
GEORGE MATHEW
M.D.SASIKUMARAN
SUNIL KUMAR A.G
MATHEW K.T.
GEORGE K.V.
PRAVEEN S.
DIPU JAMES
STEPHY K REGI
ELSA DENNY PINDIS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.
3 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PUBLIC HEALTH CIRCLE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 033.
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
SEWERAGE DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PATTOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.
5 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
SEWERAGE SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PATTOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.
BY ADV GEORGIE JOHNY
SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GOERGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2023,
ALONG WITH WP(C).20387/2022, THE COURT ON 09.02.2023 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
:3:
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). Nos. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2023.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in the captioned writ petitions is one and the
same person, a contractor engaged by the Kerala Water Authority
to carry out its work. The works allotted to the petitioner were
terminated at the risk and cost of the petitioner and further the
petitioner was blacklisted as per Exhibits P13 and P10 orders
respectively dated 30.04.2022 for a period of five years. It is thus,
challenging the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the
statutory authority, the writ petitions are filed.
2. In W.P.(C) No. 20387 of 2022, the petitioner was awarded
the work 'AMRUT 2016-17-TSS E Block Zone II-Supplying, laying
700 mm D1-K7 sewer main from Jagathi Bund road towards
existing manhole in 1200 mm dia parallel main near Jagathi School
through Panchami Garden Ch.0.00m to 323m. The work was to be
done as per the schedule, plan, specifications and conditions of
contract. There is no dispute with respect to the tender awarded
and execution of Exhibit P1 agreement dated 28.02.2019 with the
Superintending Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Public Health
Circle, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.3. According to the
petitioner, after the execution of the agreement, the site was
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
handed over to the petitioner and he started the work. However, it
is contended that handing over was done with all obstructions and
also without obtaining necessary road cutting sanction from the
authorities concerned. Various other contentions are raised by the
petitioner to demonstrate that there was no latches or negligence
on his part to carry out the said work.
3. Anyhow, the petitioner was continuing with the work and
the part bill raised by the petitioner was being paid also. It is
further submitted that when the work was stopped due to heavy
rain, water logging and the pandemic covid-19, the third respondent
directed the petitioner to restart and complete the work by 31st
December, 2020, evident from Exhibit P5 letter dated 15.12.2020.
4. The case of the petitioner is that as per the agreement, it
is for the Water Authority to clear all obstacles along the alignment,
including the road cutting permits and consent from the owners of
the building abutting the alignment. It is also the case of the
petitioner that when requests were made in that regard, the
petitioner was directed to proceed leaving the area where the
obstructions are seen and therefore, according to the petitioner the
work was completed at the portions made available and handed
over to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the alignment
entered on a narrow road and the size of the pipe was to be
shortened due to site conditions and consequently, Exhibit P6
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
request dated 20.12.2020 was forwarded to the office and the same
is lying unattended even now.
5. It is further submitted that obstructions were reported by
the petitioner as per Exhibit P7 dated 15.02.2021; but, no action
was taken by the authorities. While so, as per Exhibit P8
communication dated 09.08.2021 issued by the Executive Engineer,
Sewerage Division, Kerala Water Authority, respondent No. 4, time
for completing the work was extended till 30.09.2021. According to
the petitioner, even before the time extension, the petitioner re-
started the work at all possible places and completed the work
except 50 meters in the middle of the alignment.
6. It is also contended that local residents created
obstructions in the incomplete area and the affected parties started
filing complaints. Whatever that be, again Exhibit P9 letter dated
25.01.2022 was issued to the petitioner to re-start the work. But,
the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not able to
commence the work as facilities were not provided by the Water
Authority.
7. According to the petitioner, it was at that point of time,
Exhibit P10 letter dated 11.03.2022 was issued by the third
respondent terminating the contract and thereafter, the third
respondent has taken necessary steps to invoke the bank
guarantee, evident from Exhibit P11 dated 13.04.2022. According
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
to the petitioner, the letter of termination and the letter for invoking
bank guarantee was responded to by the petitioner as per Exhibit
P12 letter dated 26.04.2022. However, there was no response or
consideration given to the petitioner by the Water Authority and
later, as per Exhibit P13 order dated 30.04.2022, the work was
terminated without taking into consideration the contentions
advanced by the petitioner, which disabled him from carrying out
the work in question.
8. Even though the petitioner has submitted Exhibit P14
representation dated 23.05.2022, the same was not considered by
the Managing Director of the Kerala Water Authority, respondent
No.2 is the contention. Anyhow, the work was re-tendered as per
Exhibit P15 notice dated 15.06.2022. These are the background
facts put forth by the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition.
9. Insofar as W.P.(C) No. 20699 of 2022 is concerned, the
petitioner was awarded with the work 'Plan 30-2018-19-TSS-
Rehabilitation of Collection well and Pump House and Providing 3
nos. of sewage Pump Set at Arannoor Pump House. As per the
selection notice, agreement was executed and the site was handed
over to the petitioner and he started the work. Therein also, the
contentions raised in the other writ petition with respect to the
obstruction created by the local people, narrow width of the road
and other difficulties faced are raised. There were correspondences
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
by and between the parties. In fact, time for completing the work
was extended, as is evident from Exhibit P8 dated 25.01.2022.
Again, the petitioner was directed to complete the work in two
weeks from 31.01.2022. Anyhow, the contention advanced by the
petitioner is that in the meanwhile, the Superintending Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority, Public Health Circle, Thiruvananthapuram,
respondent No.3, without hearing the petitioner and without issuing
a notice, passed Exhibit P10 order dated 30.04.2022 terminating
the work.
10. Thereupon, the petitioner has submitted Exhibit P11
representation dated 23.05.2022. However, as per Exhibit P12
letter dated 26.05.2022, the third respondent has sought to invoke
the bank guarantee. The paramount contention advanced by the
petitioner is that the termination order, invocation of bank
guarantee and blacklisting are done without taking note of the
responsibilities and duties that are to be discharged by the Kerala
Water Authority and its officials.
11. It is contended that the grievances raised by the
petitioner at several stages of work are even now unattended. It is
further pointed out that a perusal of the files will reveal that there
was no response on the part of the respondents to the request
made by the petitioner for assistance and instruction at sight and
therefore, the impugned orders have been passed without taking
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
note of the ground realities. It is further submitted that even
though the petitioner has submitted a representation before the
Managing Director of the Kerala Water Authority, it also did not
yield any fruitful result and therefore, he seeks to quash the
coercive action initiated by the Kerala Water Authority.
12. The respondents have filed separate counter affidavits in
the writ petitions and have also produced documents to establish
that even though sufficient time and opportunities were provided to
the petitioner, he has not made any efforts to complete the work in
terms of the agreement executed and within the extended time
granted to the petitioner. It is also contended that as per the
Notice Inviting Tender, the selection notice and the agreement,
period of contract was for 8 months from the date of the selection
notice and any failure in adhering to the stipulations contained in
the tender documents would result in cancellation of the work and
the work would be arranged at the risk and cost of the petitioner.
13. It is further submitted that the respondents were aware
of the fact that the work requires challenging engineering skills and
that is the reason why the work was awarded to the contractor 38%
above the estimate rate. It is further pointed out that as per the
Notice Inviting Tender, the petitioner was well aware that the
buildings were situated close to the alignment and the work had to
be executed with formidable steel shoring.
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
14. The sum and substance of the contention is that the
petitioner was aware of the site conditions and later the petitioner is
not at liberty to turn around and attack the respondents with
respect to the site conditions in order to carry out the work. It is
also stated that insofar as the work in W.P.(C) No. 20387 of 2022
is concerned, as per the agreement, it should have been completed
on or before 27.10.2019. However, taking into account the fact
that the contractors did not complete the work, time of completion
of the work has been extended upto 31.12.2020 and further upto
30.09.2021 at the request of the petitioner, vide orders of the
Executive Engineer.
15. It is further submitted that it was taking into
consideration the Covid-19 pandemic and unprecedented monsoon,
time was extended for almost two years; but, in spite of all the
efforts made by the Water Authority, the petitioner failed to
complete the work. It is further contended that thereafter on
10.02.2022, the petitioner was again instructed to commence the
work from 11.02.2022 to avoid legal action. However, there was no
positive response from the side of the petitioner, which persuaded
the Water Authority to take action to terminate the contract. It is
also submitted that in spite of termination of contract, the petitioner
did not respond; but, thereafter, on 26.04.2022, a communication
was sent making imputations against the conduct of the Water
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
Authority, which according to the respondents lack bona fides.
16. It is further submitted that sufficient opportunity was
provided to the petitioner before termination of the contract.
Insofar as the work in W.P.(C) No. 20699 of 2022 is concerned,
apart from common contentions, it is submitted that the said work
also had challenging engineering skills and it was taking into
account the said factor that the contractor was awarded 8.5%
above the estimate rate. Therein also, it is contended that the
petitioner had visited the site and was well aware of the site
conditions in order to supply the erection and commission of 45 KVA
for nearest power generator with suitable diesel engine for 20 HP
pump set.
17. It is also submitted that in spite of the fact that the work
should have to be completed on 21.05.2020 and time was extended
upto 31.12.2020, 07.05.2021, 08.12.2021 and further upto
21.01.2022 at the request of the petitioner, he did not complete the
work. Anyhow, again on 10.02.2022, the petitioner was instructed
to commence the work within a week to avoid the legal sanction.
But, there was no positive response from the part of the petitioner
and it was thereupon that show cause notice dated 30.04.2022 was
issued as to why further action shall not be taken against the
petitioner.
18. It is the further contention of the respondent that the
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
petitioner was hostile to all communications issued by the Kerala
Water Authority and even though Water Authority made its best
efforts, the petitioner was not co-operating to complete the work,
which constrained the Water Authority to terminate the work at the
risk and cost of the petitioner and blacklisting the petitioner.
19. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.
George Mathew, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water
Authority Sri. Goergie Johny and the learned Government Pleader
Sri. Deepu Jyothish George, and perused the pleadings and material
on record.
20. Two questions emerge for consideration i.e., (i) whether
the termination of the contracts awarded to the petitioner is legally
correct or not; and (ii) whether the blacklisting was done without
notice to the petitioner. The award of the contract, execution of the
agreement, terms and conditions of the agreement, extension of
time granted for completion of the work etc. are all undisputed. It
is also clear from the Notice Inviting Tender produced as Exhibit
R2(a) in W.P.(C) No. 20387 of 2022 that every tenderer is
expected, before quoting his rate, to inspect the site of the
proposed work and also to inspect the quarries and satisfy himself
about the quality and availability of materials etc. It is also clear
from the Notice Inviting Tender that the Department does not
undertake to construct or make available any approach road or
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
other means of approach to the proposed work site and the
tenderer shall get acquainted with the available means of
approaches to the proposed site and quote for the various items;
and that the Department shall not be liable for any claim raised
later on the plea of the non availability or non access to the site.
21. It is also clear from the Notice Inviting Tender in both the
contracts that the contractor shall be liable for any loss caused to
the Government on account of the above work including any that
may arise due to non fulfillment of the contract. It is also clear that
the work shall be completed in all respects and also at the rate of
progress within the time limit and stipulations, failing which it is
stated that the contractor is liable to be fined in terms of the
stipulations contained in the special conditions. Various other
specifications are made in the Notices Inviting Tender, special
conditions and the agreement also so as to ensure that the work is
completed by the contractor in accordance with the terms and
conditions put forth by the Kerala Water Authority and accepted by
the petitioner.
22. It is also evident from the General Conditions issued by
the Kerala Water Authority in regard to the contracts awarded that
any dispute or difference that may arise between the Division Office
and the contractor on account of the contract shall at the instance
of either parties be referred to the Superintending Engineer, Kerala
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
Water Authority and whose decision given in writing shall be final,
conclusive and binding. It is an admitted fact that insofar the issue
in W.P.(C) No. 20387 of 2022 is concerned, the work had to be
completed even before the pandemic Covid-19 i.e, 27.10.2019,
which was being periodically extended and finally extended even in
the year 2022.
23. Insofar as the work in W.P.(C) No. 20387 of 2022 is
concerned, it was to be completed on 21.05.2020 i.e., almost two
months from the date of the lock-down restrictions imposed by the
Central and State Governments on account of pandemic Covid-19.
In spite of the lifting of the restrictions and providing sufficient time,
the petitioner could not complete the work. The contentions raised
by the petitioner with respect to the adverse situations at the sites
in question cannot be sustained at all, for the basic reason that the
petitioner was well aware of the site conditions and as per the
Notice Inviting Tender itself, it was made clear that the petitioner
had to visit the site and to be aware of the site conditions and the
Water Authority will not be responsible for any manner of complaint
in that regard.
24. This is a case where notices were issued to the
petitioner; however, in spite of the same, the petitioner has not
responded properly. This would be clear from the documents
produced by the petitioner itself. In fact, as per notice dated
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
25.01.2022 produced as Exhibit P9 in W.P.(C) No. 20387 of 2022,
the petitioner was directed to re-start and complete the work within
a month and it was warned that if he is not doing so, the authority
will be constrained to recommend to the Superintending Engineer,
P.H. Circle, Thiruvananthapuram to arrange the work at the risk and
cost of the petitioner. Thereafter, having not been responded to by
the petitioner, Exhibit P10 termination notice dated 11.03.2022 was
issued and thereafter Exhibit P11 communication dated 13.04.2022
was issued to the Bank to invoke the bank guarantee. It was in the
said constrained circumstances that the petitioner has submitted a
representation which was considered by the Superintending
Engineer in terms of the General Conditions of Contract and has
passed final order terminating the contract, as per clause 2116.2 of
Kerala Public Works Department Manual and consequently,
blacklisted the petitioner for a period of five years. Therefore, I do
not think, the petitioner has made out a case against the
cancellation of the contract and I am of the view that the allegations
raised by the petitioner against the respondents with respect to the
site conditions, non co-operation etc. cannot be sustained under
law, being against the terms and conditions of the contract. In my
considered view, the contentions advanced are against the basic
principles of law relating to contract, since the parties have agreed
to execute the contract on the specific terms and conditions of
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
contract including the ones contained in the Notice Inviting Tender
and general conditions of contract.
25. The second question to be considered is whether the
petitioner was given sufficient notice before blacklisting the
petitioner. As I have pointed out above, the Superintending
Engineer has relied upon clause 2116.2 of the Kerala Public Works
Department Manual. The contention advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of the PWD Manual
would not apply to the Kerala Water Authority and therefore, the
blacklisting of the petitioner cannot be sustained under law.
26. It is an undisputed fact that as per clause 2116.2 of the
PWD Manual, the authority is vested with powers to terminate the
contract, if the contractor abandons the work after executing a
portion without genuine reasons and does not resume or complete it
even after specific direction from the Department; that the licence
of the contractor whose work has been terminated shall be
cancelled with immediate effect and shall be barred from quoting for
another work for a minimum period of five years; the contract
licence shall not be renewed in his name or different name of a
binamy; and that a company or person or firm once terminated
shall be disqualified from participating in any tender in his name or
by using a different name or binamy and there shall also be a fine
and forfeiture of deposits. It was accordingly relying upon the said
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
provision, the petitioner was heard and later blacklisted. Is it
correct, is the issue to be resolved.
27. The learned Standing counsel for the Kerala Water
Authority submitted that neither in the Notice Inviting Tender nor in
the agreement, the applicability of the PWD Manual is not referred
to; however, it is clear from Kerala Water Authority (Authentication
of Orders, Assurance of Property and Execution of Contracts)
Regulations, 1992, that PWD Code etc. would apply in the matter
of execution of contracts for works and purchase of materials,
stationery articles, furniture etc. Regulation 5(3) specifies that all
agreements shall be executed for and on behalf of the Authority and
the forms prescribed under the Stores Purchase Manual, the P.W.D
Code or the K.F.C, as the case may be, shall mutatis mutandis
apply to the execution of contracts under the Regulation.
28. Taking into consideration the authentication of the
contracts executed by and between the contractor and the Water
Authority under the Regulations, 1992, it can be clearly found that
blacklisting can be done by the Kerala Water Authority, relying upon
the above specified clause of PWD Manual in continuation of the
termination of contract. Then the sole question is whether the
petitioner was provided with an opportunity of hearing before the
blacklisting was done. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had
filed a representation and the petitioner was heard by a competent
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
officer as required under law and upheld the action of the authority
after considering the issues raised by the petitioner.
29. The facts and circumstances discussed above would make
it clear that there was gross negligence and laches on the part of
the contractor in the matter of execution of the work inspite of the
extension of the time by the Water Authority on several occasions.
30. In the facts and circumstances, this Court needs to
consider only whether there is any arbitrariness or illegality or other
legal infirmities on the part of the Water Authority in the matter of
termination of contracts and blacklisting the petitioner.
31. In my considered opinion, sufficient opportunity was
provided to the petitioner before termination of the contract; but
the petitioner has not responded to the correspondences of the
Water Authority and it is quite clear and evident that the Kerala
Water Authority was constrained to terminate the contract due to
the negligence on the part of the petitioner. Once it is found that
the petitioner was negligent in executing the work in spite of the
extended time granted by the Water Authority, the authority
competent i.e., the Superintending Engineer, as per the General
Conditions of Contract, is entitled to blacklist the contractor. Clause
2116.2 of the PWD Manual makes it clear that once it is found that
the Contractor is responsible for not completing the work, then the
contractor shall be barred from quoting another work for a
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
minimum period of five years. Therefore, I do not think the
petitioner has made out any arbitrariness or illegality or any other
legal infirmities justifying interference of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
Needless to say, the writ petitions fail and accordingly, they
are dismissed.
sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20387/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SELECTION NOTICE NO.KWA/PHC/D4-
199(A-B)/2017 DATED 28.2.2019 BY 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 10.10.2019
SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 04.02.2020 SUBMITTED
BY PETITIONER TO 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.05.2020 BY
PETITIONER TO 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER
NO.KWA/PHC/D4-199(A&B)/2017 DATED 15.12.2020
ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.12.2020 SUBMITTED
BY PETITIONER TO ASST. ENGINEER.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 15.02.2021 SENT BY
PETITIONER TO 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.KWA/SSD/DB2/
JAGATHY/2019 DATED 09.08.2021 ISSUED BY 4TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.SMD/DB1/450/2019 DATED
25.01.2022 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF TERMINATION NOTICE NO.KWA/PHC-
D4-199 (A&B)/2017/AMRUT DATED 11.03.2022
ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF LETTER
NO.KWA/PHC/BG/JS/3532/2019 DATED 13.04.2022
ISSUED TO FINANCING INSTITUTION BY 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 26.04.2022 SENT BY E-
MAIL BY PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF ORDER
NO.KLWA/PHC/-D4-199(A&B)/2017/ AMRUT DATED
30.04.2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 23.05.2022
SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF NIT NO.28/2022-
23/KWA/SMD/TVM DATED 15.06.2022.
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 03.04.2022 GIVEN BY A
BUILDING OWNER ALONG THE ALIGNMENT TO 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.018/2022 DATED
13.07.2022 ISSUED BY MANAGER DHANALAKSHMI
BANK LTD., KASARAGOD BRANCH TO 3RD
RESPONDENT.
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER OF
WORKS AS PER NO. 17/2018-19/KWA/PHC/D4/TVM
(RTI) DATED NIL.
Exhibit R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT ENTERED
INTO ON 08/03/2019 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
True Copy
PS To Judge.
rv
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20699/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SELECTION NOTICE NO.KWA/PHC/D4-
3080/ 2019 DTD. 22.11.2019 ISSUED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.KWA/PHC/D4-3080/2019
DTD. 15.12.2020 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD. 28.12.2020 SUBMITTED
BY PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD. 11.01.2021 SUBMITTED
BY PETITIONER TO 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.KWA/PHC/D4-3080/2019
DTD. 18.07.2021 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD. 03.09. 2021 FROM
PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD. 12.10.2021 FROM
PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.SMD/DB1/2189/2019 DTD.
25.01.2022 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 4TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER
NO.KWA/SPS/ARANOOR/846/2019 DTD. 23.03.2022
ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY ASSISTANT ENGINEER.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.KWA/PHC/-D4-3080/2019
DTD. 30.04.2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 23.05.2022
SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. KWA/PHC/ BG/JS/3532/
2019(III) DTD. 26.05.2022 FROM 3RD RESPONDENT
TO THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., CHERKALA
BRANCH.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. BR/0671/56/2022/23
DATED 15/07/2022 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER SOUTH
INDIAN BANK, CHERKALA BRANCH TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SCHEDULE
APPENDED TO NIT AND AGREEMENT NO. 16/2019-
2020 DATED 12/12/2019
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SCHEDULE
APPENDED TO NIT FOR CONTRACT O.
36/2022-23/KWA/SMD/TVM DATED NIL
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
Exhibit R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER FOR
W.P.(C) No. 20387 & 20699 of 2022
WORKS AS PER TENDER
NO.14/2019-20/KWA/PHC/D4/TVM DATED NIL.
Exhibit R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON
12-12-2019 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 3RD
RESPONDENT.
True Copy
PS To Judge.
rv
