High CourtsSingle Bench

Varghese Scaria vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 7 February 2023 · Citation: (2023) 02 KL CK 0062

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shaji P. Chaly, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 37539 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 327 words

Shaji P.Chaly, J

1.

Petitioner is a contractor engaged by the Rebuild Kerala Initiative, one of the respondents, with an estimated PAC of Rs.1,19,94,753.71/-. The contract was awarded as early as on 06.11.2021, and the improvement work of the road had to be completed within nine months from the date of handing over the site. According to the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P1 work agreement, petitioner inspected the site personally and found that due to heavy rain fall, different parts of the road have collapsed and land slides have occurred in many portions of the road. It is also pointed out that a large portion of the side of the road has been washed away by flood. Petitioner has produced certain photographs in order to establish the same. Anyhow, the contention put forth by the petitioner is that the site is not handed over to the petitioner and at this point of time, the contract cannot be executed with the amount of work tendered to the petitioner. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted Ext.P9 letter to various authorities including the Project Director, Project Management Unit, Rebuild Kerala Initiative, seeking to exclude the petitioner without risk and cost, from the contract. Even though various contentions are raised, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Project Director to finalize Ext.P11 in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2.

Therefore, after having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri. Abdul Rasac and the learned Senior Government Pleader Smt. Deepa N., and perusing the pleadings and materials on record, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent, the Project Director, to consider Ext.P11, at the earliest and at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing an opportunity of hearing and participation to the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.