[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
G.Sukumaran(Died) vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2026
2026:KER:6229
WP(C) No. 7123 & 26363 of 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 7TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 7123 OF 2017
PETITIONERS:
1 G.SUKUMARAN(DIED)
AGED 77 YEARS
ASWATHY CONSTRUCTION, NALANDA, NANDANCODE PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2 ADDL.P2. V.J.RAJAMMA(WIFE)
AGED 75 YEARS
RESIDING AT ASWATHY, TC-11/915-1, NALANDA, NANTHENCODE
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.
3 ADDL.P3. SUJA.S.R.(DAUGHTER)
AGED 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT ASWATHY, TC-11/915-1, NALANDA, NANTHENCODE
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.
4 ADDL.P4. REJI S.R.(DAUGHTER)
AGED 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT ASWATHY, TC-11/915-1, NALANDA, NANTHENCODE
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.
(LEGAL HEIRS OF FIRST PETITIONER, ADDL.P2 TO P4 ARE
ADDED AS PER ORDER DATED 14.01.2021 IN I.A.1/2021 IN
WPC 7123/2017).
BY ADV SHRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (NHs)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2026:KER:6229
WP(C) No. 7123 & 26363 of 2017
2
3 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL HIGHWAY SOUTH CIRCLE,
THIRUVANANTAHPRUAM-695001
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005
5 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OFKERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ( IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R5
IN WP(C) 7123/2017 AS PER ORDER DATED 05.02.2025 IN
WP(C) 7123/2017.)
BY SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.11.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).26363/2017, THE COURT ON 27.01.2026
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6229
WP(C) No. 7123 & 26363 of 2017
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 7TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 26363 OF 2017
PETITIONERS/LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED SUKUMARAN:
1 V.J.RAJAMMA (WIFE),
AGED 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT ASWATHY, TC-11/915-1,
NALANDA, NANTHENCODE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003
2 SUJA, S.R (DAUGHTER),
AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT ASWATHY, TC-11/915-1,
NALANDA, NANTHENCODE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003
3 REJI S.R (DAUGHTER),
AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT ASWATHY, TC-11/915-1,
NALANDA, NANTHENCODE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003
BY ADV SHRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (NHs)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL HIGHWAY SOUTH CIRCLE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4 ADDL.R4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM [ADDL.R4 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS
PER ORDER DATED 05.02.2025 IN WP(C) 26363/2017.]
2026:KER:6229
WP(C) No. 7123 & 26363 of 2017
4
BY SRI.K.V. MANOJ KUMAR, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.11.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).7123/2017, THE COURT ON 27.01.2026
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6229
WP(C) No. 7123 & 26363 of 2017
5
P.M. MANOJ, J
----------------------
WP(C) Nos. 7123 & 26363 of 2017
--------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
The above writ petitions were preferred, being aggrieved by
the non-release of the contract work amount. The original petitioner
in both the writ petitions was an 'A' Grade Government Contractor
who had been awarded two works, viz.,
I.CRF work improvements and strengthening of weak
pavements by providing BM & BC for MPR starting from
581/600 connecting Balaramapuram- Poovvar in
Thiruvananthapuram
II.CRF 2013-14 improvements of Udiyankulangara
Plamoottukkada - Charottukonam - Chenkavila and
Plamoottukkada - Idichakka Plamoodu on NH 47.
2. The contractual amounts for the respective works were
Rs.10,47,97,304/- and Rs.10,22,73,294/-. The contractual
agreement for the first work was signed on 18.02.2015, and for the
second work on 15.05.2015. The initial time for the completion of
the works, as per the agreement, was 24.11.2015, and
2026:KER:6229
WP(C) No. 7123 & 26363 of 2017
29.07.2015, respectively. These deadlines were later extended to
30.04.2016, and 29.12.2015.
3. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the original
petitioner passed away. Consequently, his legal heirs were
impleaded as supplemental petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 7123 of 2017,
and the amended petition, W.P.(C) No. 26363 of 2017, was
preferred by his legal heirs.
4. According to the petitioner, the first work was successfully
completed on 30.04.2016, and the second work was successfully
completed on 29.12.2015. The original defect liability period (DLP)
for both works was three years from the date of completion.
Accordingly, the DLP was scheduled to end on 29.04.2019, for the
first work, and 28.12.2018, for the second work. However, the
petitioner contends that the authorities illegally extended the DLP
to seven years to cover anticipated damages. These extended
periods expired on 29.04.2023, for the first work, and 30.12.2022,
for the second work.
5. The amount of Rs.2,91,32,516/-, which had been recovered
towards anticipated damages for a further period of four years
2026:KER:6229
WP(C) No. 7123 & 26363 of 2017
beyond the agreement condition, was released on 26.07.2023, for
the first work. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 2,90,23,226/-,
recovered towards anticipated damages over a four-year extension
beyond the agreement condition, was released on 27.04.2023, for
the second work.
6. Thereafter, during the pendency of both these writ
petitions, this Court issued an order dated 18.11.2024 directing the
Superintending Engineer to carry out a joint inspection of the work.
On noticing that there were certain factual disputes regarding the
completion of the work, the Superintending Engineer was directed
to file a report before this Court concerning the specific areas under
dispute. The petitioner was also permitted to take part in the
verification, either personally or through a representative.
7. In compliance with the court's direction, the Superintending
Engineer preferred a report, dated 22.01.2025, stating that the
work is defect-free. After reviewing the report, this Court also
observed in its order dated 05.02.2025 that there is no substantial
defect to the road even after ten years. In such circumstances, the
court further observed that the findings in Ext. R3(k) prima facie
2026:KER:6229
WP(C) No. 7123 & 26363 of 2017
seems to be untenable. It is also noted that the defect liability
period ended on 31.12.2018. Hence, there is no justification for
withholding the amounts due to the petitioner.
8. The court further observed that the officers of the
Department are duty-bound to supervise the work entrusted to the
contractor. Supervision entails the measurement of the work and
scrutiny of the quality and quantity of the materials used. They are
also duty-bound to inform the contractor immediately about
shortcomings, if any. However, it was noted that some of the
officials were negligent. Moreover, no reports show that defects
were pointed out at the relevant time and intimated to the
contractor, directing him to cure them or to ensure that the work
was carried out strictly in terms of the contract specifications.
9. In the said circumstances, this Court directed the
Government to take a decision on the issue based on the joint
inspection report and to make the payment within two months.
However, in compliance with this direction, the Joint Secretary filed
a report that did not answer the specific questions regarding the
responsibility of the officers, as mentioned in the Court's order
2026:KER:6229
WP(C) No. 7123 & 26363 of 2017
dated 05.02.2025. The report, however, claimed that a certain loss
occurred due to substandard work, specifically a deficiency in
materials required to maintain standards. As per the test report, the
bitumen content was less than the required quantity. The bitumen
content of the Bituminous Macadam (BM) and Bituminous Concrete
(BC) mix is a very important factor that affects the strength of the
pavement. Lesser bitumen content also badly affects the
impermeability of the finished surface, thereby impacting the life of
the road.
10. As per the PWD Manual, Section 2602.4.2, the renewal of
a BM and BC road can be taken up only after seven years. Since the
defect liability period is only three years, any damage that may
happen after the expiry of the DLP and before the renewal period
due to substandard work has to be borne by the contractor. The
Kerala Highway Research Institute (KHRI) and the Vigilance Depart-
ment conducted inspections, and when irregularities were found, it
was decided to withhold funds from both projects. Despite this, it is
admitted that no major surface defects were noticed during DLP.
2026:KER:6229
WP(C) No. 7123 & 26363 of 2017
11. When the matter was taken up on August 6, 2025, the
learned Government Pleader submitted that out of the total amount
of Rs. 3,96,06,900/-, an amount of Rs.1,04,74,384/- was withheld,
and the balance amount of Rs.2,91,32,516/- has already been paid.
This Court further directed the respondents to file an affidavit
explaining how the loss to the tune of Rs.1,04,74,384/- was
quantified, including the necessary proof. This process was directed
to be carried out with notice to the original contractor's legal heirs,
as he is no longer alive. Similar amounts are also due with respect
to the second work, totalling Rs.58,07,096/-.
12. However, in compliance with the direction dated
06.08.2025, no affidavit has been filed as directed. From this non-
compliance, it appears that the quantification of the loss was done
either without sufficient proof or without issuing prior notice to the
petitioner or his legal heirs.
13. Since this issue involves disputed facts and as there is no
valid proof showing that withholding of the amount on the alleged
loss was properly quantified in compliance with the principles of
2026:KER:6229
WP(C) No. 7123 & 26363 of 2017
natural justice, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions
with the following direction:
The Government is directed to reconsider the entire
issue at the level of the Chief Secretary to the
Government by evaluating all relevant records. Upon such
evaluation, if it is found that the alleged loss is
established, the loss shall be quantified only after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the legal heirs of
the petitioner or to a responsible person nominated by
them. On quantifying the same, the remaining amount
shall be released to the petitioner/legal heirs of the
deceased petitioner at the earliest. The entire exercise
shall be completed within a period of 6 months from
today.
With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
ttb
2026:KER:6229
WP(C) No. 7123 & 26363 of 2017
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 7123 OF 2017
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. W3D1-799/2014 DATED
4/2/2015
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXEUTED IN
FAVOUR OF FEDERAL BANK
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF CREDIT DATED
5/12/2016
P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. CE/NH/TVM/D1-
2463/2014 DATED 9/2/2017
2026:KER:6229
WP(C) No. 7123 & 26363 of 2017
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 26363 OF 2017
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE DIRECTIONS TO OBEY NO. W3D1-
799/2015 DATED 20.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.01.2017 IN
W.P.(C)NO. 40960/2016.
EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PWD-D2/38/2017 DATED
07.06.2017 OF THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE MANUAL
OF CONSTRUCTION AND SUPERVISION OF BITUMINOUS
WORKS.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF TEST RESULT NO. NHQC 06/2015 DATED
13.07.2015.
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF TEST RESULT NO. NHQC 06/2015 DATED
16.07.2015.
Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE NUEVENNESS INDEX TEST REPORT
NO.PUB/CTE/2015-16/U1-4A DATED 12/2/2016
Exhibit P8 (A) A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Exhibit P8
A COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 18/08/2016
OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
E27(SC13/2016/TVM/PWD)34265/2016 DATED
13.10.2016
Exhibit R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PWD-D3/333/2016-
PWD DATED 28.11.2016
Exhibit R3 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORT OF THE
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, VIGILANCE, PWD, VIDE
LETEER NO.VIG.1/2169/2017 DATED 24.04.2017.
Exhibit R3 (d) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. W3D1-1737/2013
DATED 25.04.2016 AND SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT
EXECUTED ON 25.04.2016
Exhibit R3 (e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ASSISTANT
ENGINEER DATED 21-04-2016.
2026:KER:6229
WP(C) No. 7123 & 26363 of 2017
Exhibit R3 (f) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT CONDITIONS IN
CLAUSE 43 AND 57.1
Exhibit R3 (g) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Exhibit R3 (h)
TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VIDE LETTER NO. DATED NHBK
II/200/2014 DATED 27/05/2016
Exhibit R3 (I) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.03.2018.
Exhibit R3 (j) TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT IN
RESPECT OF THE COST REQUIRED FOR THE
RECTIFICATION WORK PREPARED BY THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER
Exhibit R3 (k) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 25.06.2018
PETITIONERS'EXHIBITS
Exhibit P9 A COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
DATED 27-12-2018
Exhibit P10 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23-01-19 BY WHICH
PETITIONER INFORMED THE MATTER OF
RECTIFICATION TO THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
