RAJAN M MENON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a contractor engaged by the State Government in order to carry out certain civil works. Various contentions are raised by the petitioner in respect of the inaction on the part of the respondents to provide adequate details in regard to the work carried out by the petitioner. There is serious dispute pending by and between the parties in respect of the percentage of work completed by the petitioner. Anyhow, while the work was going on, petitioner raised a part bill, which was paid by the respondents. According to the petitioner, petitioner could not carry on with the work, since various queries raised by the petitioner with respect to the installations to be put up in the building were not answered by the 3 rd respondent. It is also submitted that, even though a particular brand and nature of switch boards were agreed to be provided to the building, the same are not available in the market, which prevents the petitioner to complete the work. It is also submitted that, some more time is required to the petitioner to complete the work.

(2.) The reliefs sought for by the petitioner is countered by respondents 1 to 4 and 6, stating that the time provided under the contract to the petitioner to complete the work is already over and in spite of earnest efforts of the respondents, petitioner is not completing the work, and it was thereupon that, Ext.P20 was issued to the petitioner, directing the petitioner to re-start the work within three days from the date of receipt of the notice. It was also stipulated thereunder that, if the petitioner is not continuing with the work, as is directed, steps will be taken to cancel the contract.

(3.) According to the respondents, Ext.P20 was issued by the 3rd respondent, as of right, since petitioner was lethargic in carrying on with the work. It is also submitted that, by issuing Ext.P20, the respondents have not stopped the work of the petitioner, but only requested the petitioner to proceed with the work, and on failure only, it is stipulated that the contract will be cancelled. Therefore, according to learned Senior Government Pleader, there is no cause of action for the petitioner to approach this Court, challenging Ext.P20. It is further submitted by learned Senior Government Pleader that the Chief Electrical Engineer is directed to visit the site of the petitioner and do the necessary in order to identify the issues raised by the petitioner. Learned Senior Government Pleader also submitted that, petitioner has not raised any pleadings in the writ petition with respect to the non-availability of electrical fittings to be provided by the petitioner and requested for replacing the same with yet another model. Anyhow, the request made by the petitioner accordingly is produced along with the reply affidavit filed.