STATE OF KERALA Vs. K BABURAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The state, of Kerala, the Kerala state Rural Development Agency, hereinafter referred to as the "KSRDA", representing the Pradhan Manthri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) for Kerala State and the Member Secretary of the KSROA have filed this appeal challenging the judgment quashing the decision of the Superintending Engineer. the competent authority under the PMGSY, rescinding the contract awarded to the writ petitioner contractor and forfeiting his security deposit without prejudice to any action that the State may take to realise damages. The learned Single Judge has held that the aforesaid decision of the superintending Engineer, Ext. P21, could not have been issued or enforced since the case is one. where breach of contract: has been committed by the authorities of the State also and that in view of the reciprocal promises, the writ petitioner could not have been penalized, as has been done in Ext. P21 and the re-is no reason why he should be made liable for the consequences as if he has committed a breach of contract, The writ petition was accordingly ordered quashing Ext. P21 to the extent the security deposit, by way of bank guarantee, has been forfeited. The bank guarantee amount and all remaining amounts that may be due for the work that the writ petitioner has done, were directed to be paid to him in a time bound manner.

(2.) Since an appeal placed by the contractor before the standing Empowered committee was decided against; him on a majority rather than on complete consensus and because this court was of the view that what ought to be ultimately secured Is the public interest to have the rural development project in question completed, an attempt was made in that regard by convening an in-chamber proceedings presided by one among us, following the interim order dated 27.1.2010. Nothing fruitful came out, either for a negotiated settlement, or to ensure that the work is carried out through the "same contractor. The matter was hence heard on merits.

(3.) The learned senior Government Pleader argued that the contentions in the writ, petition and the counter affidavit before the learned single Judge generated disputes on questions of facts which could not have been resolved on the basis of affidavits and the writ petitioner should have been relegated to appropriate remedies before the civil court and the writ court should not have interfered with the matter. It was, pithily, pointed out that the writ petitioner did not: complete the work within the original time frame as agreed or even within the extended time limit. Since the writ petitioner could not be fully exonerated from discharging his obligations under the contract. It ought to have been held that the writ petitioner is not entitled to return of the security deposit, it is contended.