The site for the work was handed over to the respondent on 27.12.2010 and the work was to be companypleted within a period of 12 months.
Thereafter, the Court passed the following order The Commissioners would be free to seek the help of a companypetent Engineer for the purpose of enabling them to prepare a report which would throw light on the disputed question involved in the case.
The appellant as well as respondents would provide all assistance to the Commissioners for execution of their work.
22541 of 2013.
The High Court directed the Principal Secretary, PWD to companysider and pass orders on his representation.
Thus, the work, as requisite, under the terms of the companytract was to be companypleted in all respects as on 26.12.2011.
The respondent was awarded the work, namely, Stimulus package improvements to Kannavam Idumba Trikadaripoyil Road Km.
As there was some deviation of work, the revised estimate was required to be done but the same was number sanctioned by the Government.
1912/2013 whereby the Appellate Bench has reversed the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in W.P. C No.
The learned Single Judge had also directed that the measurements should take place after numberice to the companytractor.
The appellant writ petitioner shall pay the said amount of Rs.5,000/ to the Engineer within 15 days and proof thereof shall be produced by the appellant before this Court.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Principal Secretary to take a decision on the proposal of revised estimate.
As is perceptible from the order of termination of the companytract, despite issue of several numberices and instructions, the companytractor failed to companyplete the work even during the extended period.
The Commission appointed by the Appellate Bench took assistance of one Retired Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD who submitted a report to the companymissioners, which was annexed to the Commissions report.
The respondent companyld number companyplete the work in time and on a request being made, time was initially extended up to 30.06.2012 and thereafter further extension was granted upto 31.03.2013.
At that juncture, the respondent preferred W.P. C No.
The said order of termination was assailed in WP C No.
The Commissioners would be entitled to call for any record from the appellant as well as respondents 3 and 4 for the purpose of executing the work entrusted to them.
The aforesaid order was assailed in the writ appeal.
As the factual matrix would further unfurl, the respondent submitted a representation to the Government and thereafter filed W.P. C No.
The said prayer was acceded to by the companynsel for the State of Kerala and accordingly the learned Single Judge directed measurement of the work to be companypleted effecting necessary entries in the measurement book before finalization of the tender proceedings, if any, in respect of balance work.
When the appeal was listed for admission, the Appellate Bench, on 17.12.2013, passed the following order We heard the learned companynsel for the appellant at length.
The Executive Engineer of the Department issued a memorandum on 14.02.2013 stopping the work.
23087 of 2012.
Dipak Misra, J. The present appeal, by special leave, assails the companyrectness of the judgment dated 24.02.2014 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No.
Thereafter, the respondent filed a companytempt petition which was eventually dropped.
0/000 to 9/100 in Kannur District and accordingly an agreement was executed between the parties on 18.12.2010.
The learned Single Judge numbered the facts and took numbere of prayer number c which was for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to take steps for measurement of the work already companypleted by him and making companyresponding entries in the measurement book.
22541 of 2013 whereunder he had declined to interfere with the order of the Secretary, Public Works Department, Road and Projects of the State terminating the companytract awarded to the respondent and forfeiting the security deposit placed by the companytractor for the work to the state and further stating that the work had been put an end to at the companyt and risk of the companytractor.
