MARYMATHA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows; petitioner is a works contractor, having A class licence with the 1st respondent. Petitioner was awarded with a work - NABARD - RIDF XVII - Construction of a regulator cum bridge at Pathalam across river Periyar in Ernakulam District as per Ext.P1 work order dated 14.6.2012, with a proximate contract value of Rs.59 Crores. Pursuant to Ext.P1, an agreement was executed by and between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent on 9.7.2012, evident from Ext.P As part of the contract conditions, petitioner had given a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.4, 97, 18, 300/- as performance guarantee being 10% of the probable amount of contract, evident from Ext.P3. According to the petitioner, there were changes in the design of bridge, approach road and certain other quantities of work, thus a revised estimate was prepared and approved by the respondents and supplemental agreements were executed fixing the time of completion of work as 31.8.2016. It is also submitted that, petitioner was forced to undertake and complete additional work to the tune of Rs.15 Crores outside the scope of Ext.P1, but payments with regard to the said additional work is not yet approved by the respondents. Therefore, petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 3rd respondent for payment enumerating the details of the additional works undertaken and the amount expended for the same. As per Ext.P5 completion report dated 4.5.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent, petitioner has completed the works undertaken by him.

(3.) It is further submitted that, now the 3rd respondent insist that a meagre quantity of the additional work with regard to the approach road needs to be completed. The said stand of the 3rd respondent is quite contrary to the facts and since the land for the said work has not yet acquired by the respondents and it is learned that, since litigation is pending, it is impossible to complete the acquisition proceedings in near future. In fact Revenue Department has not so far acquired and handed over the land near to the starting point of the approach road on the left bank side of the bridge.