M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD. vs KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
- Court
- Kerala High Court
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:1:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
‘CR’
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1323 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.44761 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S.PRG BUILDCON INDIA PVT. LTD
PRATHIMA BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, PLOT NO-213, ROAD NO-01
FILM NAGAR, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR B.SUNIL KUMAR, PIN - 500096
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.SHANES METHAR
SHRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD
SHRI.A.MOHAMMED FAIZAL
SRI.IMAM GRIGORIOS KARAT
SHRI.HARKISH SREETHU V.S.
SHRI.ARJUN P.V.
SHRI.S.RAMESH BABU (SR.)
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:2:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686661
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER
AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, KATTAPPANA, PIN – 685508
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH WA.1447/2026, 1449/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON THE 23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:3:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1447 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.40539 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
GEORGE MATHEW
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. MATHEW, EDAPAZHATHIL HOUSE, MANJALLOOR, VAZHAKULAM
P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686670
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
SHRI.JOHN ZACHARIAH DOMINIC
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:4:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H. DIVISION, IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR, PIN – 680121
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1449/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:5:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1449 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.40583 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
GEORGE MATHEW
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. MATHEW, EDAPAZHATHIL HOUSE, MANJALLOOR, VAZHAKULAM
P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686670
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
SHRI.JOHN ZACHARIAH DOMINIC
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:6:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, NATTIKA,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680566
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:7:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1450 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.40562 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
GEORGE MATHEW
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. MATHEW, EDAPAZHATHIL HOUSE, MANJALLOOR, VAZHAKULAM
P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686670
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
SHRI.JOHN ZACHARIAH DOMINIC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:8:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, NATTIKA,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680566
BY ADV SHRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, ADDITIONAL STANDING
COUNSEL, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:9:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1453 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.41456 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S. MAJESTIC CONSTRUCTIONS
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, DOMINIC ZACHARIAS,
S/O. P.O. ZACHARIAS, AGED 57 YEARS, PANAMKATTU HOUSE,
KARIMKUNNAM P.O., THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN - 685586
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:10:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, KOTTAYAM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686002
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:11:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1458 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.20352 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
MARYMATHA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
(FORMERLY MARYMATHA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY) MARYMATHA
SQUARE, ARAKUZHA ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O ERNAKULAM
(DIST) REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SIBU CHERIAN, PIN -
686661
BY ADV SRI.S.VISHNU (V-736)
SHRI.S.RAMESH BABU (SR.)
SHRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
JALA BHAWAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM –
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR., PIN - 695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH
CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:12:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
PIN - 695033
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN – 695033
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI JUSTIN JACOB – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:13:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1466 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.22889 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
MARYMATHA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED
(FORMERLY MARYMATHA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY) MARYMATHA
SQUARE, ARAKUZHA ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O ERNAKULAM
(DIST) – REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SIBU CHERIAN, PIN
- 686661
BY ADV SRI.S.VISHNU (V-736)
SHRI.S.RAMESH BABU (SR.)
SHRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
JALA BHAWAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM –
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR., PIN - 695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH
CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:14:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
PIN - 695033
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN – 695033
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI JUSTIN JACOB – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:15:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1467 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.41424 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S. MAJESTIC CONSTRUCTIONS
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, DOMINIC ZACHARIAS,
S/O. P.O. ZACHARIAS, AGED 64 YEARS, PANAMKATTU HOUSE,
KARIMKUNNAM P.O., THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN - 685586
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:16:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, KOTTAYAM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686002
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI JUSTIN JACOB – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:17:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1469 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.26186 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P. CHANDRABABU,
S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY .
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:18:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVALLA,PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT,, PIN - 689101
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PROJECT DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ADOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,, PIN – 689101
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI JUSTIN JACOB – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:19:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1470 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.41409 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S. MAJESTIC CONSTRUCTIONS
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, DOMINIC ZACHARIAS,
S/O. P.O. ZACHARIAS, AGED 57 YEARS, PANAMKATTU HOUSE,
KARIMKUNNAM P.O., THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN - 685586
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:20:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, KOTTAYAM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686002
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI JUSTIN JACOB – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:21:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1471 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.36592 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
ZUBAIR V
AGED 57 YEARS
, S/O. ABDULLA, CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KODUR P.O.,
MANGATTUPULAM, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676504
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:22:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
2 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H. CIRCLE, MALAPPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676504
3 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN – 676505
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:23:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1472 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.2665 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,P.CHANDRABABU,
S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:24:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, H CIRCLE, KERALA WATER
AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA, THIRUVALLA,, PIN - 689101
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER
AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, ADOOR, PIN – 691523
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:25:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1473 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.3092 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA , REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,P.CHANDRABABU,
P.CHANDRABABU, S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:26:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KERALA WATER
AUTHORITY,PATHANAMTHITTA,THIRUVALLA,, PIN – 689101
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:27:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1477 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.2720 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,P.CHANDRABABU,
P.CHANDRABABU, S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN -
695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:28:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
PATHANAMTHITTA, THIRUVALLA,, PIN – 689101
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:29:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1482 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.2545 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,P.CHANDRABABU,
S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:30:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT., PIN - 689101
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER
AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT., PIN - 691523
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:31:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1485 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.2727 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,P.CHANDRABABU,
S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:32:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,PATHANAMTHITTA,THIRUVALLA, PIN –
689101
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI JUSTIN JACOB – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:33:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1487 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.27174 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P.CHANDRABABU,
S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:34:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PROJECT DIVISION,KOLLAM, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
CHITTUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:35:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1488 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.26379 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P. CHANDRABABU,
S/O LATE DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:36:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT,, PIN - 689101
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PH DIVISION, ADOOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,, PIN – 689101
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI JUSTIN JACOB – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:37:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1490 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.41028 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S. STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD
PLOT NO. 34, EASWARAIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA STATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS, DIRECTOR, P.
CHANDRABABU, S/O., P. DASTAGIRI, PIN - 500062
BY ADVS.
SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
SMT.C.P.MANISHA
SMT.PINKY A.R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:38:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA WATER
AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN –
670141
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI JUSTIN JACOB – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:39:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1492 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.26209 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P. CHANDRABABU,
P. CHANDRABABU, S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:40:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT,, PIN - 689101
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PROJECT DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ADOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,, PIN – 689101
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:41:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1493 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.27181 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P.CHANDRABABU,
S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:42:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR, PIN - 670012
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PROJECT DIVISION,KOLLAM, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN – 670012
BY ADV SHRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, ADDITIONAL STANDING
COUNSEL, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:43:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1494 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.6244 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,P.CHANDRABABU,
P.CHANDRABABU, S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:44:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOCHI,
PIN – 682011
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:45:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1496 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.14639 OF
2026 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
JOSEPH JOHN
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. JOHN, MONIPILLIL HOUSE, AVOLI P.O., ANICKADU,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686670
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
SHRI.NAVEEN N. ROBINSON
SHRI.JOHN ZACHARIAH DOMINIC
RESPONDENTS:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:46:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686661
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PAINAVU, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER
AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI
DISTRICT, PIN – 685508
BY ADV SHRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, ADDITIONAL STANDING
COUNSEL, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:47:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1498 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.26389 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P. CHANDRABABU,
S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:48:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT,, PIN - 689101
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PH DIVISION, THIRUVALLA, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,, PIN – 689101
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:49:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1499 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.26473 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P. CHANDRABABU,
S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:50:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT,, PIN - 689101
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PH DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,, PIN – 689101
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:51:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1501 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.2326 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,P.CHANDRABABU,
S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:52:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,KANNUR, PIN - 695002
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER
AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION,KANNUR., PIN – 695002
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:53:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1503 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.41011 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S. STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD
PLOT NO. 34, EASWARAIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA STATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS, DIRECTOR, P.
CHANDRABABU, S/O., P.DASTAGIRI., PIN - 500062
BY ADVS.
SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
SMT.C.P.MANISHA
SMT.PINKY A.R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:54:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA WATER
AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN -
670141
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:55:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1506 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.26384 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P. CHANDRABABU,
S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:56:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT,, PIN - 689101
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PH DIVISION, THIRUVALLA, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,, PIN - 689101
BY ADV SHRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, ADDITIONAL STANDING
COUNSEL, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:57:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1511 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.26156 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P. CHANDRABABU,
P. CHANDRABABU, S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:58:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR,, PIN - 670012
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PROJECT DIVISION, KANHANGAD, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
KASARGOD DISTRICT,, PIN – 671315
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:59:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1512 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.27529 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P.CHANDRABABU,
S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:60:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOCHI,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
682011
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PROJECT DIVISION,KOLLAM, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
KOCHI,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN – 682011
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:61:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1518 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.4402 OF
2026 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
ASHRAF M
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. KAMMETH HAJI, MOOLAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PAZHAMALOOR
P.O., KOOTTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676506
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
SHRI.JOHN ZACHARIAH DOMINIC
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:62:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, JALA
BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, NATTIKA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN
- 680569
4 THE FINANCE MANAGER & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI JUSTIN JACOB – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:63:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1520 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.26192 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P.CHANDRABABU,
S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:64:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT,, PIN - 689101
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
P H DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT,, PIN - 689101
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI JUSTIN JACOB – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:65:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1523 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.26295 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P. CHANDRABABU,
S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:66:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT,, PIN - 689101
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PH DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,, PIN – 689101
BY ADV SHRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, ADDITIONAL STANDING
COUNSEL, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:67:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1534 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.25240 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
KASHMIRILAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD
825 GANDHI CHOWK, RANIKHET, ALMORA DISTRICT,
UTTARAKHAND-263645, (LOCAL OFFICE) PATTAR VALIYATH,
MARUNNAN SHOPPING COMPLEX, WARD NO.13, 384,
KUNNOTHUPARAMPA - POILUR ROAD, PARAT, THUVAKUNNU,
KOLAVELLOOR, KANNUR-670693, REP. BY ITS, DIRECTOR,
VIVEK AGARWAL, S/O. KASHMIRILAL AGARWAL, AGED 55 YEARS
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
RESPONDENTS:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:68:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE,
JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670012
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI JUSTIN JACOB – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:69:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1538 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.28194 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA , REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P.
CHANDRABABU, S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI,, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:70:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE, MALAPPARAMBA,, PIN -
673009
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PROJECT DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PIN – 673009
BY ADV SHRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, ADDITIONAL STANDING
COUNSEL, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:71:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1541 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.3088 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S STREFA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD
PLOT NO: 34, EASWARIAH ENCLAVE, DAMMAIGUDA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,P.CHANDRABABU,
P.CHANDRABABU, S/O LATE P. DASTAGIRI, PIN - 500083
BY ADV SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH CIRCLE,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:72:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR,, PIN - 670012
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI JUSTIN JACOB – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:73:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1569 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.25408 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
KASHMIRILAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD
825 GANDHI CHOWK, RANIKHET, ALMORA DISTRICT,
UTTARAKHAND-263645, (LOCAL OFFICE) PATTAR VALIYATH,
MARUNNAN SHOPPING COMPLEX, WARD NO.13, 384,
KUNNOTHUPARAMPA - POILUR ROAD, PARAT, THUVAKUNNU,
KOLAVELLOOR, KANNUR, REP. BY ITS, DIRECTOR, VIVEK
AGARWAL, S/O. KASHMIRILAL AGARWAL, AGED 55 YEARS, PIN -
670693
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
RESPONDENTS:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:74:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE,
JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MATTANNOR, KANNUR, PIN – 670702
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:75:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1570 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.25416 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
KASHMIRILAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD
825 GANDHI CHOWK, RANIKHET, ALMORA DISTRICT,
UTTARAKHAND-263645, (LOCAL OFFICE) PATTAR VALIYATH,
MARUNNAN SHOPPING COMPLEX, WARD NO.13, 384,
KUNNOTHUPARAMPA - POILUR ROAD, PARAT, THUVAKUNNU,
KOLAVELLOOR, KANNUR, REP. BY ITS, DIRECTOR, VIVEK
AGARWAL, S/O. KASHMIRILAL AGARWAL, AGED 55 YEARS, PIN -
670693
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
RESPONDENTS:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:76:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE,
JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MATTANNOR, KANNUR, PIN – 670702
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:77:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1594 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.25225 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
KASHMIRILAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD
825 GANDHI CHOWK, RANIKHET, ALMORA DISTRICT,
UTTARAKHAND-263645, (LOCAL OFFICE) PATTAR VALIYATH,
MARUNNAN SHOPPING COMPLEX, WARD NO.13, 384,
KUNNOTHUPARAMPA - POILUR ROAD, PARAT, THUVAKUNNU,
KOLAVELLOOR, KANNUR, REP. BY ITS, DIRECTOR, VIVEK
AGARWAL, S/O. KASHMIRILAL AGARWAL, AGED 55 YEARS, PIN -
670693
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
RESPONDENTS:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:78:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE,
JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, KOTTAYAM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686002
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:79:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1597 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.48048 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
M/S. SURENDRA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD
HEAD OFFICE, 9, EZRA STREET, 2ND FLOOR, KOLKATA - 700
001, REP. BY ITS PROJECT MANAGER, M.K. SHAJI, (MUTTATH
KOCHUKUNJU SHAJI), S/O. KOCHUKUNJU, AGED 63 YEARS
VAISHNAVAM, UMMALATHOOR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673008
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
SHRI.JOHN ZACHARIAH DOMINIC
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:80:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, JALA
BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682011
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI, PIN - 682011
4 THE FINANCE MANAGER & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033
BY ADV SHRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, ADDITIONAL STANDING
COUNSEL, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:81:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1598 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.25218 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
KASHMIRILAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD
825 GANDHI CHOWK, RANIKHET, ALMORA DISTRICT,
UTTARAKHAND-263645, (LOCAL OFFICE) PATTAR VALIYATH,
MARUNNAN SHOPPING COMPLEX, WARD NO.13, 384,
KUNNOTHUPARAMPA - POILUR ROAD, PARAT, THUVAKUNNU,
KOLAVELLOOR, KANNUR, REP. BY ITS, DIRECTOR, VIVEK
AGARWAL, S/O. KASHMIRILAL AGARWAL, AGED 55 YEARS, PIN -
670693
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
RESPONDENTS:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:82:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE,
JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MATTANNOR, KANNUR, PIN – 670702
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI JUSTIN JACOB – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:83:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1607 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.25396 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
KASHMIRILAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD
825 GANDHI CHOWK, RANIKHET, ALMORA DISTRICT,
UTTARAKHAND-263645, (LOCAL OFFICE) PATTAR VALIYATH,
MARUNNAN SHOPPING COMPLEX, WARD NO.13, 384,
KUNNOTHUPARAMPA - POILUR ROAD, PARAT, THUVAKUNNU,
KOLAVELLOOR, KANNUR, REP. BY ITS, DIRECTOR, VIVEK
AGARWAL, S/O. KASHMIRILAL AGARWAL, AGED 55 YEARS, PIN -
670693
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
RESPONDENTS:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:84:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE,
JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MATTANNOR, KANNUR, PIN – 670702
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:85:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1611 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.25227 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
KASHMIRILAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD
825 GANDHI CHOWK, RANIKHET, ALMORA DISTRICT,
UTTARAKHAND, (LOCAL OFFICE) PATTAR VALIYATH, MARUNNAN
SHOPPING COMPLEX, WARD NO.13, 384, KUNNOTHUPARAMPA -
POILUR ROAD, PARAT, THUVAKUNNU, KOLAVELLOOR, KANNUR,
REP. BY ITS, DIRECTOR, VIVEK AGARWAL, S/O. KASHMIRILAL
AGARWAL, AGED 54 YEARS, PIN - 670693
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
RESPONDENTS:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:86:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE,
JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, KOTTAYAM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686002
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:87:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1612 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.25412 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
KASHMIRILAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD
825 GANDHI CHOWK, RANIKHET, ALMORA DISTRICT,
UTTARAKHAND-263645, (LOCAL OFFICE) PATTAR VALIYATH,
MARUNNAN SHOPPING COMPLEX, WARD NO.13, 384,
KUNNOTHUPARAMPA - POILUR ROAD, PARAT, THUVAKUNNU,
KOLAVELLOOR, KANNUR, REP. BY ITS, DIRECTOR, VIVEK
AGARWAL, S/O. KASHMIRILAL AGARWAL, AGED 55 YEARS, PIN -
670693
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
RESPONDENTS:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:88:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE,
JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MATTANNOR, KANNUR, PIN - 670702
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670012
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:89:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 1ST ASWINA, 1948
WA NO. 1634 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.25429 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
KASHMIRILAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD
825 GANDHI CHOWK, RANIKHET, ALMORA DISTRICT,
UTTARAKHAND-263645, (LOCAL OFFICE) PATTAR VALIYATH,
MARUNNAN SHOPPING COMPLEX, WARD NO.13, 384,
KUNNOTHUPARAMPA - POILUR ROAD, PARAT, THUVAKUNNU,
KOLAVELLOOR, KANNUR, REP. BY ITS, DIRECTOR, VIVEK
AGARWAL, S/O. KASHMIRILAL AGARWAL, AGED 55 YEARS, PIN -
670693
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.ADITHYA BENZEER
RESPONDENTS:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:90:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE,
JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MATTANNOR, KANNUR, PIN – 670702
SHRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR)
SHRI GOERGIE JOHNY – SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2026,
ALONG WITH W.A.1323/2026 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE
23.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:91:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
‘CR’
SOUMEN SEN, C.J.
&
SYAM KUMAR V. M, J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.A. Nos.1323, 1447, 1449, 1450, 1453, 1458, 1466,
1467, 1469, 1470, 1471, 1472, 1473, 1477, 1482,
1485, 1487, 1488, 1490, 1492, 1493, 1494, 1496,
1498, 1499, 1501, 1503, 1506, 1511, 1512, 1518,
1520, 1523, 1534, 1538, 1541, 1569, 1570, 1594,
1597, 1598, 1607, 1611, 1612 & 1634 of 2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
rd
Dated this the 23 day of September, 2026
J U D G M E N T
Soumen Sen, CJ
The appellants are the contractors who are aggrieved by
th
the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 8 June,
2026 in W.P.(C) No.44761 of 2024 along with connected
matters whereby the prayer of the writ petitioners to direct the
Kerala Water Authority (in short, “KWA”) to release the amount
payable to the writ petitioners towards the value of supply
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:92:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
made by it at the rates quoted in respect of such goods
supplied instead of 80% of the estimated value of the supplied
goods was refused.
2. W.A. No.1323 of 2026 is taken as the lead matter. The
relevant facts are stated below.
3. The appellant entered into a contract with the KWA for
executing work under Jal Jeevan Mission. The said contract
was on Bill of Quantities (in short, “BoQ”) basis and the work
was captioned “JJM-5th SWSM – CWSS to Vazhappally,
Thrikkodithanam, Paippad, Kurichy & Changanassery
Municipality – Design construction and commissioning of 22
MLD Water Treatment Plant at Morkulangara and allied works,
including 3 year O & M, 20 LL OH tank, SCADA, 500 mm DI
K9 pumping main and road restoration” (hereinafter referred to
as “the work”). The appellant claimed that the work covered by
the notice inviting tender (NIT) has three components, namely;
i) supply and laying of pipelines
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:93:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
ii) construction of water treatment plant and
iii) supply and installation of components incidental to
the above works.
4. Volume II of the NIT contains special conditions for Jal
Jeevan Mission Scheme works.
5. The appellant entered into an Agreement No.04/ 2025-
th
26 on 15 April, 2025, to execute the aforesaid work.
6. In terms of the aforesaid agreement, the appellant
claimed to have supplied a substantial portion of pipes required
for execution of the work and the entire work executed was
inspected by the competent authority. The appellant claimed
that a sum of 1,84,86,916/- is due and payable towards the ₹
value of the supplies made, which was arrived at after
deductions towards taxes, Kerala Construction Workers Welfare
Fund and the retention amount of 2.5%. The net amount
payable as per the voucher issued to the appellant for the
purpose of effecting payment, after deducting GST, would come
to 2,04,28,042/-. The said amount was alleged to have been ₹
arrived at by the respondents after taking into consideration
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:94:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
the estimated value of the goods supplied instead of the value
quoted by the appellant for each and every item supplied by it.
7. Before the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners
had specifically argued that the amount payable to the
petitioners towards the value of supply made should not be
confined to 80% of the estimated rate instead of the quoted rate
, which is much higher than the estimated rates. The
petitioners contended that the reliance placed by the
respondents upon Clauses 8.8 and 9.14.1.6 of Exhibit-P1 was
erroneous , as the said clauses can be made applicable not in
respect of itemized contracts.
8. In the counter affidavit filed by the KWA, the reason for
limiting the payment up to 80% of the estimated value of the
supplies was tried to be explained by referring to Clauses 8.8
and 9.14.1.6 of the contract. The KWA contended that the said
clauses would clearly show that the payment towards supplies
can only be 80% of the estimated value. The petitioners had
submitted the tender after going through the terms and
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:95:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
conditions of the NIT,and once the tender submitted is accepted
and the work is awarded, the writ petitioners cannot question
the aforesaid clauses.
9. In W.P.(C) No.38133 of 2024, the Kerala Infrastructure
Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) was impleaded as it is the
funding agency of the project.
10. Mr. S. Ramesh Babu, the learned Senior Counsel,
assisted by Mr. N. Krishna Prasad, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants, has argued that when
the appellants had quoted separately for each and every item
with specified rates, under no circumstances, could the
respondents deny payment of the quoted rate of the items
supplied. The quoted rates in respect of the goods supplied are
higher. The respondents have throughout contended that the
payment effected by them was strictly as per the contractual
terms and conditions as evidenced by the Exhibit-P1 agreement
and, therefore, acceptance of the said terms and conditions by
the appellants and execution of the work based on the work
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:96:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
awarded in terms of the agreements clearly estop KWA from
denying such payment. KWA has already benefited from the
execution of the said work. The terms and conditions have
been acted upon and performed. The authorities concerned,
having accepted the performance, cannot now deny release of
the amounts in accordance with such terms.
11. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted
that Clause 9.14.1.6 cannot be made applicable to the supplies
effected by the appellants in view of the fact that those clauses
are relevant only in respect of lump sum contract and not in
respect of itemized contract as entered into by the appellants
with the KWA. The learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance
upon the terms “the break up of payment as secured advance
which shall be considered by the authority in accordance with
the relevant provisions of the Rules for release of secured
advance in KWA” in Clause 8.8. It is contended that the
contract in question is an item-wise contract where the rates on
each item are specifically quoted and the relevance of break up
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:97:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
of payment as envisaged in Clause 8.8 of Exhibit-P1 arises only
in cases of lump sum contracts. In other words, according to
the learned Senior Counsel, “approved payment break up” is
one of the essential conditions for attracting Clause 8.8 and in
the contracts which are the subject matter of these writ
petitions, no provisions have been made for such payment
breakup. Therefore, it was contended that the same cannot be
made applicable.
12. The stand of the KWA and other State respondents
before the learned Single Judge was that the appellants cannot
claim the amount payable towards value of supply on the basis
of the quoted rate for each of the items and claim of the
appellants can only be entertained and considered for 80% of
the value of the tested material he has supplied at site. It was
submitted that Clause 8.8 of Exhibit-P1 NIT as well as Clause
9.14.1.6 justify that the contractor is entitled to raise a claim
for 80% of the value of the tested materials (pipes) at the
estimated rates/quoted rates, whichever is lesser and in
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:98:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
accordance with the break up of the payments approved as
secured advance, which shall be considered by the authority in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the rules for release
of secured advance in KWA. They have referred to the
rd
proceedings of the Managing Director of KWA dated 23 March,
2019 based on the Board resolution of the KWA bearing No.
th th
10971 of the 407 meeting of the KWA on 28 November, 2018
to argue that it can be seen from the said proceedings that the
KWA had indeed taken a conscious decision to incorporate
certain clauses, including Clause 9.14.1.6, in the tender
document.
13. The learned Senior Counsel has contended that the
NIT is a standard form document of the KWA for both itemized
and lump sum contracts. The said document contains several
terms and conditions, and all of them may not be applicable in
a given contract. The mere retention of a clause in the standard
document does not make it applicable irrespective of the nature
of the contract. In an item-rate BoQ contract, every item is
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:99:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
separately described and carries a separately accepted rate.
Payment becomes due upon execution, measurement, check
measurement and certification of that item. The accepted BoQ
itself forms the contractual basis for payment, unlike a lump-
sum contract where interim payments may be made on the
basis of an approved stage-wise payment breakup. Clause 8.8
expressly refers to secured advance being released in
accordance with an approved payment breakup. The absence of
any approved payment breakup in the appellants’ contract
clearly demonstrates that the clause was not intended to govern
payment for independently completed BoQ items. A secured
advance is an advance against materials brought to the site
before the entitlement for the relevant stage of work has
matured. Where supply itself is a separately priced and
independently measurable BoQ item, payment upon
certification is not an advance but the consideration due for the
completed item.
14. It is further argued that Clause 9.14.1.6 is enabling
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:100:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
in character. When applied to a completed and certified item in
an item-rate contract, it is impermissibly converted into a
restrictive clause truncating an already matured entitlement.
Such a restrictive consequence cannot be inferred in the
absence of clear and express contractual language. There is no
contractual clause linking payment for supply of pipes to their
subsequent laying, installation, testing, commissioning, inter-
connection or completion of any other item. Each such activity
is separately included and separately priced in the accepted
BoQ, and the respondents cannot create a linkage which the
parties did not incorporate in the contract.
15. It is submitted that although the learned Single
Judge has observed that the balance amount would eventually
be paid, neither the contract nor the impugned judgment
identifies when such payment becomes due. There is no
triggering event, stage or time limit for release of the balance
20% or the difference between the departmental estimate rate
and the accepted BoQ rate. The interpretation accepted in the
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:101:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
impugned judgment results in indefinite deferment of an
admitted contractual liability and destroys business efficacy. It
is commercially inconceivable that a contractor would agree to
supply costly materials at an accepted rate while receiving only
80% of an undisclosed departmental estimate rate, without
knowing when the balance contractual amount would be paid.
16. It is submitted that a contractual term may be
implied only when it is necessary to give business efficacy to
the transaction and is something so obvious that it goes
without saying that the parties, who are businessmen, must
have intended it; that, in all events, it must have been in the
contemplation of both parties that, if a bystander were to
suggest some express provision, they would exclaim, “Oh, of
course.” An implied stipulation that the balance payment would
become due only upon an unidentified future event satisfies
none of these requirements. The learned Single Judge failed to
interpret the contract as a whole. Clauses 8.8 and 9.14.1.6
could not have been read in isolation from the accepted BoQ,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:102:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
the independent description of the supply item, the absence of
an approved payment breakup and the absence of any linkage
clause.
17. It is submitted that the reference to the judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of
1
Orissa and Others and Tata Motors Limited v. Brihan
Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (Best)
2
and Others may not have any application to the present facts
and circumstances of the case, as the present case does not
concern evaluation of bids or award of a contract but the
arbitrary withholding of payment after the tender had been
awarded, the agreement executed and the relevant item
completed and certified. The appellants did not seek
adjudication of a disputed claim for damages or breach of
contract. The issue was a pure question of interpretation and
applicability of standard form contractual clauses by a
statutory authority, which was capable of determination of the
1
(2007) 14 SCC 517
2
(2023) 19 SCC 1
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:103:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
admitted facts and documents under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
18. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
appellants had been awarded a BoQ contract. Under the
accepted BoQ, the supply of tested materials, including pipes,
constituted a separate item. According to the learned Senior
Counsel, there was no stipulation in the BoQ restricting
payment upon completion and certification of the supply. The
grievance of the appellants arose when the KWA limited
payment for the supply of tested materials to 80% of the
estimated cost or the agreed rate, whichever was less.
19. It is submitted that the aforesaid restriction was
sought to be justified by the respondents on the basis of
Clauses 8.8, 9.14.1.6, 8.15.1 and 8.16 of the NIT Conditions,
Volume I. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents
contended that the said clauses formed part of a standard-
format contract and had no application in the context of an
item-wise rate contract, but were applicable only in the context
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:104:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
of lump-sum contracts.
20. It is submitted that though the respondents had
initially contended before the learned Single Judge that the
contracts were lump-sum contracts, the learned Single Judge
had accepted the contention of the appellants that the
contracts were item – wise contracts. The submissions of
the appellants in the writ appeals, therefore, proceeded on
that basis.
21. It is also contended that the fundamental distinction
between an item-wise rate contract and a lump-sum contract
was required to be borne in mind. In an item-wise rate contract,
the agreement is for execution of the individual items specified
in the BoQ at the agreed rates, whereas, in a lump-sum
contract, the agreement is for execution of a finished work for
the agreed lump-sum consideration. Thus, the learned Senior
Counsel submitted that item-rate BoQ contracts are also
described as measurement or re-measurement contracts.
22. It is further submitted that in an item-rate BoQ
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:105:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
contract, the accepted Schedule contains the list of items and
the expected quantities of work, with the contractor quoting a
rate for each individual item. The items included in the
Schedule and executed at site are measured, check measured
and certified for payment. The payment mechanism of the KWA
is also governed by the applicable statutory and regulatory
provisions, including the Kerala Public Works Account Code,
Kerala Financial Code and Kerala Treasury Code.
23. According to Mr. Babu, once payment becomes due
upon completion of an individual item in an item-rate BoQ
contract, there could ordinarily be only two methods by which
such payment could be deferred. The first method would be by
incorporating a restrictive clause providing that,
notwithstanding completion of the item, the balance amount
would be paid only within a specified period. It is further
submitted that the contract in the present case contained no
such provision.
24. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:106:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
learned Single Judge had observed that the amounts would
eventually be released to the appellants subject to the terms
and conditions of the agreement. According to the appellants,
however, the agreement did not contain any provision
indicating when or under what circumstances the balance
amount, after payment of 80%, would become payable. The
absence of any such provision, it is contended, was material to
the dispute.
25. The second method by which payment for an item in
an item-rate BoQ contract could be deferred would be by
incorporating a specific linkage clause, linking full payment of
one item with the execution of another item in the BoQ. Mr.
Ramesh Babu has referred particularly to Serial Nos. 1.002 and
1.008 of the item-wise BoQ at Page No.246 of the paper book
and submitted that the supply of pipes was treated as an
individual item. The BoQ did not link payment for that item
with the execution of any other item. It is further submitted
that the terms and conditions, which could not override the
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:107:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
BoQ, also contained no such linkage. He has relied upon the
3
decision in C.A. George v. State of Kerala for the proposition
that the BoQ would have precedence over the conditions in the
tender.
26. The learned Senior Counsel then addressed the
question whether Clause 9.14.1.6, read either independently or
along with Clause 8.8 of the NIT Conditions, was an enabling
clause or a restrictive clause and has submitted that this was a
seminal issue arising for consideration and that either
approach—whether Clause 9.14.1.6 was read with Clause 8.8
or independently—would lead to the same conclusion. The
learned Senior Counsel has referred to Clause 8.8, which
provides that there shall be no mobilisation advance, but
enables the contractor to raise a claim for 80% of the value of
tested materials supplied at site, at the estimated or quoted
rate, whichever is less, and in accordance with the approved
break-up of payment, as a secured advance, subject to
3
AIR OnLine 2019 Ker 713
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:108:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
consideration by the Authority in accordance with the relevant
provisions.
27. According to Mr. Ramesh Babu, Clause 8.8, which
was also reflected in Clause 9.14.1.6, was clearly an enabling
provision. This was further reinforced by the description of the
payment as a “secured advance”. He submitted that a secured
advance is a payment made against materials supplied, where
the entitlement to the regular payment has not yet arisen, and
the Department retains a lien over the materials. Reference was
made to the provisions of the Kerala Public Works Account
Code dealing with the release of intermediate payment, secured
advances, forms of bills and vouchers, preparation,
examination and payment of bills, advances to contractors.
28. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the
reference in Clause 8.8 to an “approved break-up of payment”
was significant. According to the learned Senior Counsel, there
was no concept of an approved break-up of payment in an item-
wise rate BoQ because the accepted Schedule itself contains
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:109:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
each item and the rate agreed in respect of that item. He
further submitted that the concept of an approved payment
break-up had relevance in the context of a lump-sum contract,
particularly where the Authority invites a tender for execution
of a finished or turnkey work and interim payments are to be
made at different stages on the basis of an approved payment
break-up.
29. Mr. Ramesh Babu has further submitted that when
this issue was initially raised before the learned Single Judge,
th
an interim order dated 27 June, 2024 was passed specifically
concerning the existence of an approved payment break-up in
respect of an item-rate BoQ contract. According to the learned
Senior Counsel, the approved payment break-up, if any, was
never produced.
30. Mr. Babu has referred to Clause 8.16 of the NIT
Conditions dealing with payments to the contractor and
submitted that the said clause made it clear that the payment
method contemplated an approved break-up expressed as a
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:110:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
percentage of the contract value. According to him, such a
concept had no application to an item-wise rate BoQ contract
where the rates were separately agreed for each item.
31. It was, therefore, submitted that, if Clause 8.16
concerning an approved payment break-up was applied to the
present item-wise contract, the contractual scheme would
become unworkable. It is contended that a proper reading of
the contract conditions themselves demonstrated that the
reference in Clauses 8.8 and 9.14.1.6 was intended to operate
in the context of a lump-sum contract.
32. The learned Senior Counsel alternatively submitted
that, even on a plain reading of Clause 9.14.1.6, the provision
merely contemplated payment of 80% of the amount due,
namely, 80% of the estimated or agreed amount, whichever was
less. If the provision were treated as an enabling clause, it
would render the item-rate contract commercially unworkable,
because the fundamental basis of an item-rate contract is that
payment becomes due upon completion of the relevant item.
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:111:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
33. It was, therefore, submitted that when Clause
9.14.1.6 is read in the context of the fundamental features of
an item-wise BoQ contract, it cannot properly be regarded as
an enabling clause and could be treated as a restrictive clause.
He also submitted that, if Clause 9.14.1.6 was treated as a
restrictive clause, the absence of any provision prescribing the
consequences of such restriction would render the clause
inapplicable in the present context. According to the appellants,
a clause intended to limit the payment rights arising upon
completion of an item-rate contract would require explicit
conditions specifying the manner and circumstances in which
such limitation would operate.
34. It is submitted that Clauses 8.8 and 9.14.1.6 could
be understood as operating only in the context of a lump-sum
contract. In such contracts, the KWA provides for stage-wise
payments and Clause 8.16 expressly contemplates an approved
payment break-up prepared by the KWA, which forms the basis
for payment.
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:112:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
35. According to Mr. Babu, in a lump-sum contract,
payment becomes due upon completion of the relevant stage in
accordance with the approved payment break-up. When this
contractual arrangement is considered along with the circular
referred to by the learned Single Judge, the circumstances in
which payments could otherwise remain blocked explained the
need for a provision such as Clause 8.8 read with Clause
9.14.1.6.
36. The learned Senior Counsel also had relied upon the
Kerala Water Authority (Authentication of Orders, Assurance of
Property and Execution of Contracts) Regulations, 1992, and
submitted that the said Regulations made the relevant
provisions of the Kerala Financial Code and Kerala Treasury
Code applicable to the Authority and the same principles also
apply to all Government contracts.
37. It was submitted that in the argument note filed
before the learned Single Judge, particular reliance had been
placed upon the provisions of the Kerala Public Works Account
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:113:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
Code, Kerala Financial Code and Kerala Treasury Code to
demonstrate that Clause 9.14.1.6, read with Clause 8.8 and its
reference to secured advance, could operate only in the context
of a lump-sum contract.
38. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
relevant provisions of the Codes had specifically been placed
before the learned Single Judge to demonstrate that certain
clauses contained in the standard-format contract had no
application to the present contractual arrangement. According
to the appellant, the juxtaposition of the provisions of the Codes
with the Duties of Employees Regulations had also been dealt
with in the earlier argument note, but the said aspect had not
received adequate consideration.
39. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the
contract being commercial in nature, the meaning of a contract
must be gathered by adopting a commonsense approach and
that the interpretation of a commercial contract must take into
account the circumstances, apparent conduct, commercial
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:114:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
facets of the transaction and, whenever necessary apply the
principle of business efficacy to make it workable. The learned
Senior Counsel has submitted that the agreement is
commercial in nature and that, in the construction of clauses
in commercial contracts it is necessary to give business efficacy
rather than invalidate a claim that may be opposed to such
rule. Mr. Babu has relied upon the decision in Union of India
4
v. D.N. Revri & Co. , for the proposition that a contract is a
commercial document and must be interpreted in a manner
which gives efficacy to the contract rather than invalidating it.
40. Applying the principle laid down in paragraph 7 of
the decision in D.N. Revri & Co. (supra) to the present case, it
is argued that it would make no commercial sense for the
appellants, which were aware that the KWA was using a
standard-format contract, to have agreed to a truncated
payment for an item-rate contract without there being any
indication whatsoever as to when or in what circumstances the
4
(1976) 4 SCC 147
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:115:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
balance amount would be paid.
41. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon
paragraph 97 of the decision in Cox and Kings Limited v. SAP
5
India Pvt. Ltd. to argue that the Courts must interpret
contracts in a manner that would give them a sense of efficacy
rather than invalidating the commercial interests of the parties.
42. The learned Single Judge had adopted a textual
approach to the Clauses without considering the very nature of
the contract as an item-rate BoQ contract. It was submitted
that a textual interpretation from the contractual context would
lead to a result which had no commercial sense and never had
been the intention of the parties.
43. Mr. Babu, however, has clarified that the appellants
did not dispute the general proposition that a plain reading of
contractual terms is ordinarily the norm. The submission was
that such an exercise was necessarily subject, first, to the
applicability of the particular clause to the contract in question,
5
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1634
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:116:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
and secondly, to the commercial consequences of the
construction adopted. According to the appellants, once the
applicability of the clauses to an item-rate contract was
examined in its proper context, there would be no disharmony
in the contractual scheme.
44. Mr. Babu has further relied upon the decisions in
Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd. v. West Bromwich
6
Building Society ; Chartbrook Ltd. v. Persimmon Homes
7 8
Ltd. ; and Rainy Sky SA v. Kookmin Bank , in support of the
principle that in appropriate circumstances, literal
interpretation must give way to a construction which accords
with the commercial sense of the transaction. The question
whether any term could be implied into the contract so as to
defer or restrict the entitlement of the appellants, reliance has
been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
9
Nabha Power Ltd. v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd . .
6
(1998) 1 WLR 896
7
(2009) UKHL 38
8
(2011) 1 WLR 2900
9
(2018) 11 SCC 508
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:117:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
45. It is submitted that the decision in Nabha Power
Ltd. (supra) emphasises the significance of context and
commercial sense in construing commercial contracts and that
any attempt to imply a term into the present contract would
have to satisfy the principles constituting the Penta Test. It is
also submitted that it has been held in the said decision that
commercial courts are to be understood in a commercial sense,
and the argument on behalf of the appellants that “item-wise”
BoQ shall be paid fully and not 80% of the estimate rate does
not make any commercial sense, as it does without saying that
the parties have never intended to link item-wise BoQ to the
completion of the project.
46. It is submitted that the main argument note filed
before the learned Single Judge had specifically dealt with the
principles governing implication of terms and had demonstrated
that any attempt to imply a term deferring payment or linking
payment for one item with another would fail the Penta Test.
According to the appellant, the impugned judgment had not
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:118:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
addressed this aspect, as it proceeded substantially on the
applicability of the contractual conditions and the absence of a
challenge to those conditions.
47. Mr. Babu has further contended that standard
printed clauses which contain inapplicable or redundant
clauses cannot be mechanically applied to a particular
contractual situation and in this regard, reliance was placed
10
upon the decisions in M.K. Abraham v. State of Kerala and
11
McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.
The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, on the basis of
the aforesaid submissions, has sought for setting aside the
impugned judgment.
48. Per Contra , Mr. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, the learned
Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Georgie Johny, the learned
counsel for the KWA, submitted that the common judgment
th
dated 8 June, 2026 disposed of 190 writ petitions involving
10
(2009) 7 SCC 636
11
(2006) 11 SCC 181
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:119:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
the identical contractual issue regarding the entitlement to
claim 100% of the price of materials supplied and only 45
appeals have been filed. The remaining writ petitions have
attained finality. Mr. Kurup has relied upon the decisions of
this Court in Deputy Director of Collegiate Education &
12 13
Others v. Dr. Serji , State of Kerala v. Anisha Varghese ,
and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Gangai Vinayagar
14
Temple & Another v. Meenakshi Ammal & Others ,
wherein it was held that findings in unappealed matters
forming part of a common judgment operate as res judicata .
Hence, the present appeals are liable to be dismissed on this
preliminary ground itself.
49. Mr. Kurup has submitted that the issue to be
determined in these writ appeals is not whether the contract is
an item-rate contract. The question is whether a separately
valued BoQ item for supply can be treated as an independent
12 th
Judgment dated 14 March, 2012 in W.A. No.1181 of 2014
13
2025 KHC 1505
14
( 2015) 3 SCC 624
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:120:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
contractual obligation to claim 100% payment, notwithstanding
Clause 9.14.1.6, which specifically restricts payment on supply
to 80%.
50. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the
appellants incorrectly equate separate BoQ valuation with
contractual severability. The supply of pipes may be separately
measurable and valued, but the tender does not treat supply as
an independent contract or as completion of the Work.
Reference was made to the definition of ‘Work’ in Clause 9 of
the Definitions and the ‘Name of Work’ to contend that the
contractual obligation comprises design, construction, supply,
laying, testing, commissioning and maintenance, and that the
relevant component is described as “Supply and laying of
Distribution System” and “Supply and Laying of Pipes and
Specials”. Mr. Kurup has taken us through the NIT, forms of
agreement and the declaration executed by the appellants to
show that the appellants have acknowledged and accepted
payment of 80% of the tested materials as mobilisation
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:121:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
advance, well reflected in Clauses 8.8 and 9.14.1.6 of the
contract. It is the mode of payment agreed irrespective of the
nature of the contract. It is thus submitted that these
provisions show that separate pricing of supply is for
measurement and valuation and it does not sever supply from
the larger contractual performance.
51. The learned Senior Counsel for the KWA has placed
reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Manoharan D. v.
15
Union of India , particularly paragraphs 45, 49 and 50, to
contend that the mere fact that items are separately priced in a
BoQ does not render an otherwise indivisible works contract
divisible.
52. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the same
composite character is recognized in the impugned judgment
whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the attempt to treat
supply as an independent sale and held, in substance, that
supply is part of the larger contractual obligation, and that
15
2026 KHC OnLine 2170
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:122:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
supply alone does not complete the contractor's obligations.
53. Mr. Kurup has further submitted that, if any
ambiguity arises in the interpretation of tender conditions, the
interpretation adopted by the KWA, being the author of the
tender, is entitled to due deference and in this context, reliance
was placed upon the decisions in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd.
16
v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. , Silppi
17
Constructions Contractors v. Union of India and Agmatel
18
India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom.
54. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted
that the reliance placed by the appellants upon the Penta Test
is misplaced, since the respondents are not seeking to imply
any term into the contract. Rather, the express provisions of
the tender, including Clauses 9.14.1.1 to 9.14.1.6, Clause 7.1
and Clause 6.16, are required to be read together. Referring to
paragraphs 49 and 72 of the decision in Nabha Power Ltd .
16
(2016) 16 SCC 818
17
(2020) 16 SCC 489
18
( 2022) 5 SCC 362
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:123:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
(supra) , it was submitted that, in view of the aforesaid express
provisions dealing with the terms of the tender mutually agreed
upon by the parties at the time of execution of the contract, the
appellants cannot be heard to contend at this stage that the
payments to be released in respect of item-wise BoQ would be
100%, which interpretation, if accepted, would go against the
basic canon of interpretation of a contract.
55. Relying upon the decision in Agmatel India Pvt.
Ltd. (supra) , it was submitted that the Court is only required to
interpret the existing contractual terms and not imply an
unstated “item-rate exception” which would render Clause
9.14.1.6 ineffective. The appellants, therefore, cannot introduce
an unstated “item-rate exception” which would neutralise
Clause 9.14.1.6.
56 . Mr. Kurup has also submitted that Clause 9.14.1.6
directly regulates the supply-stage bill and contains no
exception for an item-rate contract. It provides: “On each
supply, Contractor may submit bills for materials supplied not
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:124:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
exceeding 80% of estimate rate / quoted rate of materials,
whichever is less”. The BoQ determines the agreed valuation of
the item, whereas Clause 9.14.1.6 determines what is billable
at the supply stage. The two provisions operate in different
fields and can be harmoniously given effect to. The impugned
judgment, in paragraph 15, has specifically treated Clause
9.14.1.6 as an independent provision governing payment on
each supply.
57. Mr. Kurup has also submitted that the balance 20%
cannot be treated as automatically payable merely upon
delivery of the materials. It is argued that Clause 9.14.1.6
governs the amount billable at the supply stage, while the
remaining contractual entitlement has to be understood with
reference to completion of the defined Work, which includes
supply, laying, testing and commissioning. Thus, supply
constitutes only a stage in the performance of the Work and not
completion of the Work itself, and submitted that the 80%
provision governs the supply stage; the balance follows
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:125:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
completion of the contractual Work in the manner
contemplated by the tender.
58. As regards the departmental rate, the learned Senior
Counsel submitted that the definition in Clause 14 defines
“Departmental rate” as the rate worked out by the Authority
based on departmental data and Schedule of Rates, together
with conveyance and 10% towards the contractor's profit,
except the cost of materials issued departmentally. The absence
of a numerical departmental rate against every BoQ item,
according to the learned Senior Counsel, is distinct from the
absence of a contractual criterion, since the tender itself defines
the concept which Clause 9.14.1.6 uses as one of the two
comparators.
59. Mr. Kurup has submitted that the NIT, Scope of Work,
BoQ, Letter of Acceptance, work order and Agreement must be
read together. The Accepted Schedule cannot be treated as
constituting the entire contract. The Agreement records the
contractual documents and proceedings forming part of the
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:126:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
agreement and accepted by the parties.
60. It was accordingly submitted that the appellants'
contention confuses item-wise valuation with severability of
contractual performance; that no implied term is required to be
introduced; that the Penta Test is not attracted; and that, in
any event, the reasonable interpretation placed by the KWA, as
the author of the tender, is entitled to deference. The learned
Senior Counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
61. In brief response to the aforesaid submissions of the
learned Senior Counsel for the KWA, Mr. Krishna Prasad, the
learned counsel assisting Mr. Ramesh Babu, has submitted
that the BoQ is a substratum of the contract upon which the
entire edifice of the contract stands and it is a standalone
component of the contract document which needs to be
separated and segregated for the purpose of making full
payment on an item-wise basis and is not relatable to any other
clause in the agreement that contemplates payment of 80% of
the estimated value of the supplied goods.
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:127:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
62. The learned counsel has also referred to the clauses
alluded to above by the learned counsel for the parties, as well
as to some of the clauses which we have taken note of in our
observations, to reiterate that, although the contract may be
indivisible, the payment obligation does not emanate from the
indivisibility of the contract, but arises from the standalone
nature of the BoQ in the contract.
Our Observations
63. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) , relied upon by
the learned Senior Counsel for the KWA, at paragraphs 15 and
16, it was held as follows:
“15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a
project, having authored the tender documents, is
the best person to understand and appreciate its
requirements and interpret its documents. The
constitutional courts must defer to this
understanding and appreciation of the tender
documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in
the understanding or appreciation or in the
application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is
possible that the owner or employer of a project may
give an interpretation to the tender documents that is
not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by
itself is not a reason for interfering with the
interpretation given.
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:128:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
16. In the present appeals, although there does not
appear to be any ambiguity or doubt about the
interpretation given by N MRCL to the tender
conditions, we are of the view that even if there was
such an ambiguity or doubt, the High Court ought to
have refrained from giving its own interpretation
unless it had come to a clear conclusion that the
interpretation given by N MRCL was perverse or mala
fide or intended to favour one of the bidders. This
was certainly not the case either before the High
Court or before this Court.”
(emphasis supplied)
64. In Silppi Constructions Contractors (supra) , replied
upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the KWA, at paragraph
20, it was held as follows:
20. “………….. The authority which floats the contract or
tender, and has authored the tender documents is the
best judge as to how the documents have to be
interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the
interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts
will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality,
bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in
mind we shall deal with the present case.
65. Similarly, in Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) , at
paragraphs 23 and 24, it was held as follows:
“23. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions and have examined the record with
reference to the law applicable.
24. The scope of judicial review in contractual matters,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:129:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
and particularly in relation to the process of
interpretation of tender document, has been the subject-
matter of discussion in various decisions of this Court.
We need not multiply the authorities on the subject, as
suffice it would be refer to the three-Judge Bench
decision of this Court in Galaxy Transport Agencies
[Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways, Fleet
Owners & Transport Contractors, (2021) 16 SCC 808:
2020 SCC OnLine SC 1035] wherein, among others, the
said decision in Afcons Infrastructure [Afcons
Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd.,
(2016) 16 SCC 818] has also been considered; and this
Court has disapproved the interference by the High
Court in the interpretation by the tender inviting
authority of the eligibility term relating to the category of
vehicles required to be held by the bidders, in the tender
floated for supply of vehicles for the carriage of troops
and equipment.”
66. The contract in question is an indivisible contract
which includes BoQ.
67. Plans, drawings and specifications of building and
engineering works are generally so complicated in their nature
as to necessitate, if tenders are required, the making of
calculations to ascertain the amount of each kind of work
required under the contract, e.g. excavation, brickwork. The
results of these calculations are called bills of quantities. [see
nd
Halsbury's Laws of England (2 Edition) Vol. 3, para 187]. "Bill
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:130:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
of quantities" is the name given to a detailed statement of the
different items of work, labour, and materials which it is
estimated will be required for the proposed work. The bills of
quantities are usually split up into several bills, such as the
carpenters' bill and masons' bill, and are provided with a blank
money column for the builder to fill up, and by the addition of
the sums filled in the builder can arrive at the amount of the
tender. The bills of quantities are usually prepared by quantity
surveyors, but sometimes the architect himself undertakes the
nd
work (see Halsbury's Laws of England (2 Edition) Vol. 3, para
190) .
19
68. Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts
explains that Bill of Quantities is a detailed schedule of the
quantities and items of work anticipated to be carried out
under the contract, upon which the contractor tenders by
assigning rates and prices to individual items. The BoQ thus
serves as the contractual basis for identification, measurement
19
Hudson’s Building and Engineering Contracts, Fourteenth Edition
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:131:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
and valuation of the various components of the works.
Consequently, where the accepted BoQ separately identifies and
prices different components of the contractor's obligations, the
BoQ itself furnishes a factual and contractual basis for
examining whether a particular item forms part of the
assessable cost of construction.
69. The functional test of BoQ has been lucidly explained
20
in Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts (supra)
as follows:
“In theory, bills of quantities should, depending on the
terms of the contract, serve a number of functions:
(i) they indicate with some precision to tendering
contractors the amount and nature of the works they
will have to carry out;
(ii) they indicate to persons examining the tender on
behalf of the owner a more detailed make up of the
overall contract sum for tender comparison purposes;
(iii) in measured, as opposed to lump sum contracts
they are a precise measure of the quantity of work
undertaken for the contract price, which will be
adjusted once the work is complete and the actual
20 th
Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts, (11 Edition) Vol.1
para 2.225, para 370) [Building Contracts]
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:132:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
quantity known, whether or not any variations have
been ordered;
(iv) they form the contractual basis of valuing
variations in the work (as opposed to the discrepancies
between billed and actual quantities, arising from
errors or inaccurate estimates of the quantities, which
it is the purpose of a measured contract, but not a
lump sum contract, to correct);
(v) in the RIBA standard forms of measured contract,
they also contain the specification of the work.”
(emphasis supplied)
70. A BoQ is a document, prepared in accordance with a
standard method of measurement, that itemises the estimated
quantities and descriptions of the work comprised in a building
contract, priced by the contractor at tender stage. Because a
BoQ breaks a project down into a long list of individually priced
items, whether a BoQ contract should, for that reason, be
treated as divisible rather than entire, the better view,
consistent with Hudson, Keating and Emden, is that this
depends entirely on the contractual role the BoQ is given — not
on its item-wise format.
71. BoQ has two distinct and separate roles depending
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:133:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
on the nature of the contract. In a lump sum contract with
quantities, the BoQ is used at tender stage only as a device to
compute and check a single, fixed contract sum for the whole of
the defined works, whereas in a re-measurement (measure-and-
value) contract with approximate quantities the BoQ quantities
are expressly stated to be provisional or approximate, and the
contract provides that the actual quantities of work executed
will be remeasured and valued at the billed (or adjusted) rates.
Because the final sum genuinely tracks the quantity of work in
fact carried out, item by item, at agreed rates, this arrangement
is much closer in substance to a divisible contract.
72. Hudson's caution that interim payments are usually
payments on account of an entire obligation, rather than proof
of divisibility, applies with equal force to lump-sum BoQ
contracts. Keating's distinction between lump-sum and
measure-and-value contracts maps directly onto the distinction
drawn above. Emden similarly treats the pricing mechanism –
lump sum, bill of quantities, or re-measurement – as a question
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:134:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
of how payment is calculated, not as itself determinative of
whether the underlying obligation to build is entire or divisible.
73. It follows that a BoQ contract is not automatically
divisible merely because its price is broken into numerous
priced items. The governing question remains the parties'
intention as expressed in the payment and re-measurement
machinery: if the BoQ is simply the computational basis for a
single fixed price, the contract is properly regarded as entire; if
the BoQ contracts are genuinely provisional and payment
follows actual measured work, the contract functions, in
substance, as divisible notwithstanding its single formal
document.
74. There is no single mechanical formula that decides
whether a contract is divisible or composite (entire/indivisible).
Whether a contract is entire or divisible is answered by
construing the contract as a whole, the overarching principle —
its terms, its mode of payment, and the circumstances
surrounding its making — to ascertain what the parties
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:135:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
actually intended.
75. An 'entire contract' (indivisible contract) is one
where the entire fulfilment by one party of his obligations is a
condition precedent to the liability of the other party.
76. Effectively, this means that any failure by the first
party to carry out his part justifies the other party in
repudiating. A severable contract, by contrast, is one in which
this rule does not apply.
77. In an ‘entire contract’, the consideration is usually a
lump sum which is payable only upon complete performance
by the other party. The opposite of an entire contract is a
severable contract, which is separable into parts, so that
different parts of the consideration may be assigned to several
parts of the performance, eg, agreement for payment on a pro
rata basis. It is a question of construction of the contract
whether it is entire or divisible.
78. The 'entire contract' rule also means that if the
contractor completes the work but fails to carry all of it out
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:136:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
in accordance with the terms of the contract, he can
recover nothing.
79. In a lump-sum contract, the role of a BoQ, if
prepared, was as a guide to tendering Contractors to assist
them in arriving at their lump sum tenders from the
Employer’s design drawings. In view of the risk element
involved in the form of inaccuracy in the bills on the
Contractor, the Employer employs a Quantity Surveyor to
prepare a BoQ for tendering purposes.
80. There are two concepts which are often referred to
which reflect the difference in treatment of price between a
lump sum contract, where the Contractor undertakes to carry
out defined work for a fixed lump sum, and contracts where
the contract price is arrived at by re-measurement either
during or at the end of the project, to establish the price for
the work in fact undertaken.
81. Building contracts are entire in the sense that
completion of the work or defined parts of the work is a
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:137:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
condition of the Contractor's entitlement to be paid. The
contract price is inclusive of all works incidentally necessary
to achieve completion of the works.
82. For lump-sum fixed price contracts, it is, therefore,
important to understand the significance of the BoQ in the
ascertainment of the contract price. A BoQ or schedule of
rates may be included in the contract solely for the purposes
of establishing the valuation of varied work, whether by
omission or addition to the contractual scope of work.
Alternatively, the scope of some part of the work may be
defined by the quantities in the bill, so that the final contract
value can only be finally calculated after the work has been
undertaken and remeasured. The status of the estimate of
quantities contained in the bill and the method by which the
bill has been prepared and the cost of work described (as
provided by the various standard methods of measurement),
therefore, assume considerable importance in any discussion
of the amount to which the Contractor is entitled. Further, the
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:138:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
incorporation of a description of works prepared according to
one of the various standard methods assumes importance
when considering the inclusive price principle. In a simple
lump sum contract, the contract price will be taken to include
all work incidentally necessary to achieve the contractual
object, however difficult and costly that might prove to be.
Whilst the inclusive price principle still has application in
lump sum contracts where the work is only generally defined
or where the Contractor is responsible for design-as generally
with temporary work-the rigour of the application of the rule is
much attenuated where bills of quantities are used,
particularly if the description of the item in the bills is
contractually required to be prepared in accordance with the
relevant standard method of measurement.
21
83. In Emden’s Construction Law , the Express Terms
as to Payment and Fixed price or lump sum are explained
as follows:
21
Emden’s Construction Law Volume 1, page 6-13
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:139:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
“ [6.22] Parties are free to agree any payment
terms, provided that they do not conflict with the
statutory requirements considered below. All
standard forms of building and engineering
contracts contain express terms regulating the
obligation to pay for the work. A number of
different bases for pricing and payment are in
common use. Payment terms are interpreted in the
same way as other terms in the contract.
[6.23] A building contract priced in the traditional
way requires the contractor to carry out and
complete specified work for a fixed sum agreed in
advance. Under this system, the design needs to be
virtually complete and the work quantified when it
is put out to tender. Contractors must be able to
price the project accurately when tendering. To
ensure uniformity and accuracy in the description
of work given to contractors, bills of quantities will
be drawn up according to a published standard
method of measurement. Where the contract
documents are deemed to have been prepared in
accordance with the standard method, and an item
of necessary work is omitted which under the
standard method ought to have been separately
identified, the contractor will be entitled to an
addition to the original contract price. (An example
might be unpriced excavation in rock).”
“[ 6.25 ] There is a tendency to confuse ‘fixed price'
contracts with 'entire' contracts. The source of the
confusion is that the term ‘lump sum' contract
may be applied indiscriminately to both. A 'fixed
price' contract is one where the contractor takes
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:140:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
the risk of the contract work proving more
extensive or expensive than originally foreseen,
and takes the benefit if it is easier. An entire
contract is one where the employer's obligation to
pay only arises upon the contractor's completion of
the works. In the absence of contractual or
statutory provision for interim payments, an
ordinary building contract for the carrying out of
defined work would generally be an 'entire
contract, ie, the obligation to complete is one and
indivisible...……...”
(emphasis supplied)
84. The idea of an entire contract was vividly expressed
22
by Sir George Jessel MR in Re Hall & Barker “….. If a
shoemaker agrees to make a pair of shoes, he cannot offer you
one shoe, and ask you to pay one-half of the price”. However, it
is possible for a contract to be so structured as to consist of
‘entire’ sections. In that event the appropriate part payment is
23
due upon completion of each section (See Needler v. Guest ).
The question whether a contract is an entire contract should
not be confused with the question whether there has been a
total failure of consideration such as may give rise to a claim in
22
(1878) 9 Ch D 538 at 545
23
(1647) Aleyn 9, 82 ER 886[2012] EWCA Civ 1371, [16]-[17]
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:141:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
restitution as held in PC Harrington Contractors Ltd v.
24
Systech International Ltd.
85 . The bills of quantities may be incorporated into the
contract to operate as part of the contractual definition of the
work to be carried out.[see Emden’s Construction Law (supra )]
25
86. In Keating on Construction Contracts , Bills of
quantities are explained in Chapter 1 at paragraph – 020, as
follows:
“ Bill of quantities Bills of quantities quantify the
works in detail and are ordinarily prepared in
accordance with an agreed standard method of
measurement. Their purpose "is to put into words
every obligation or service which will be required in
26
carrying out the building project" . They may not
form part of the contract although they are
submitted to the contractor for tender. Generally it
requires express words in the articles of agreement
to make the bills of quantities a contract document.
They often contain a preamble, which includes
further provisions on the method adopted in their
preparation or the basis on which they are to be
priced. The contractor's prices against each item,
24
(1647) Aleyn 9, 82 ER 886
25
Keating on Construction Contracts, Eleventh Edition
26
The Placing and Management of Building Contracts. (HMSO, 1944), the
Simon Report, para.55.
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:142:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
whether a rate for a quantity or a price for an item,
usually form the basis for valuing the work when
applied to appropriate measurements.”
(emphasis supplied)
87. In Keating on Construction Contracts (supra) , it is
stated that an entire contract is an indivisible contract where
entire performance by one party is a condition precedent to the
liability of the other party and where therefore the contractor's
right to payment depends on entire performance on its part.
Whether a contract is an entire one is a matter of construction.
Clear words are needed to bring an entire contract into
existence (see chapter 4 paragraph 004 ). However, the court
may be constrained by express words. It is explained as under:
"Where from the whole tenor of the agreement it
appears that however unreasonable and oppressive a
stipulation or condition may be, the one party
intended to insist upon and the other to submit to it, a
court of justice cannot do otherwise than give full
effect to the terms which have been agreed upon
between the parties without stopping to consider how
far they may be reasonable or not."..…
(emphasis supplied) ( see Chapter 5 paragraph 004)
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:143:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
88 . A lump sum contract in a Standard Form of Building
Contract is normally a contract to complete the whole work for
a lump sum. The whole work to be performed is that the
contractor must carry out and complete the works in
accordance with the contract documents. The lump sum
payable could be the stated sum or such other sum as becomes
payable under the contract. The contract may provide a right
to be paid in instalments of the contract sum, which may be
adjusted based on the certificate issued by the competent
authority regarding the progress made or as stipulated in the
contract. The entire completion of the project by the contractor
is not a condition precedent to the right to call for and receive
any payment where instalment payments have been envisaged
in the contract. However, the right to receive the full payment
depends on successful completion of the entire work when a
final certificate is issued thereby giving a the contractor the
right to claim release of the residue of the contract sum then
retained.
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:144:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
89. In the background of the aforesaid discussion, the
nature of the work assigned needs to be analysed with a view to
find out if the appellants could claim the supply of the items
independent of other works performed or to be performed.
Moreover, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Gopalakrishna Kurup,
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the KWA, the question
is whether a separately valued BoQ item for supply can be
treated as an independent contractual obligation to claim 100%
payment, notwithstanding Clause 9.14.1.6, which specifically
restricts payment for supply to 80%. We have carefully
considered the rival submissions and perused the materials
placed on record.
90. A contract has to be read as a whole to understand
the intention of the parties. A word cannot be picked out
indiscriminately and interpreted de hors the object and purpose
of the contract. Mere use of the words “item-wise supply” will
not make a contract BoQ contract when it appears to be an
indivisible contract leaning towards a “lump-sum contract”.
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:145:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
91.KWA issued an E-tender bearing
No.34/2023-24/SE/PHC/MVPA for supply and laying
distribution system and providing Functional Household Tap
Connections (In short ‘FHTCs’) in Nedumkandam Panchayat-
Pipeline Work. The said tender was under the Jal Jeevan
Mission (JJM)-JJM-WSS to Nedumkandam, Pampadumpara,
Upputhara, Elappara (part) and Arakkulam (part) Panchayats in
Idukki District. The offers were invited for the aforesaid project
from contractors with experience in designing, supplying, laying
and commissioning of similar works/design, construction and
commissioning of water treatment plants for the works
mentioned in the said notice.
92. The format of the letter submitting tender requires
the bidder to make the following declaration:
“1. I/We ……….......on behalf of...............as the duly
authorized person(s) in my/our official capacity
as………....... of the aforesaid firm, hereby submit
this tender for your consideration. I/we have read
and understood all conditions of this document in
full spirit and meaning. I/We hereby agree to accept
all the conditions put forth in the succeeding pages
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:146:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
of this document without any deviations or with the
exceptions, which may be expressly admitted and
accepted by the tender accepting authority before
the award of work. Preliminary agreement duly
executed and signed in Rs.200/- worth stamp paper
is also enclosed. Copy of the specifications duly
signed is also enclosed.
xx xxxx
6. The tender submitted is fully in accordance with
NIT and I/we agree to all NIT Conditions and any
other conditions prevailing in KWA in Toto.
7. I have not included any conditions in quoting for
this tender.”
(emphasis supplied)
93. The agreement refers to supply and laying
distribution system and providing FHTCs in Nedumkandam
Panchayat – Pipeline work. The “work” is defined in Clause 6
under the Definitions and Interpretations in sub-clause 9
as follows:
“‘Work’ means the work-project to be done as per
the description in the tender document”.
94. “Departmental rate” is defined in Clause 14
which reads as under:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:147:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
“‘Departmental rate’ means rate worked out by
the Authority based on departmental data and
Schedule of Rates plus conveyance plus 10%
towards contractor's profit except on the cost of
materials issued departmentally.”
95. Tender conditions in Part I have described the
“name of work” as follows:
“Name of Work: Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM)-JJM-
WSS TO NEDUMKANDAM, PAMPADUMPARA,
UPPUTHARA, ELAPPARA (PART) AND ARAKULAM
(PART) PANCHAYATHS IN IDUKKI DISTRICT –
Supply and laying distribution system and
Providing FHTCs in Nedumkandam Panchayath-
Pipeline Work: successful tenderer shall be
entrusted with the work of design, construction,
supply, erection, pipe laying, commissioning and
maintaining of all the Civil, Mechanical and
Electrical components required for the completion
of the project as described in the “Scope of Works”
in Volume II”.
96. In Volume-II of the tender document, the scope of the
work has been enumerated and elaborated. It states that the
project is aimed at providing potable drinking water to the
households in Nedumkandam, Pampadumpara, Upputhara,
Elappara (part) and Arakkulam (part) Panchayats in Idukki
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:148:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
District of Kerala State. The proposed project includes the
following packages:
“1. Supplying and Laying Distribution System and
Providing FHTCs in Upputhara, Elappara(part) and
Arakkulam(part) Panchayaths.
2. Supply and laying distribution system and
Providing FHTCs in Pampadumpara Panchayath.
3. Supply and laying distribution system and
providing FHTCs in Nedumkandam Panchayath.
4. Supplying and laying of CWPM from WTP to
Kalyanathandu top including construction of Sump
cum pump house and 11 LL GLSR.
5. Providing and Laying CWGM from Kalyanathandu
to Nedumkandam SPH and construction of SPH.
6. Providing and Laying CWGMs, CWPM,
construction of SPH, 6.5 LL & 65 LL GLSR in
Upputhara.
7. Providing and laying CWPMS & CWGM and
Construction of SPH & GLSR in Pampadumpara.
8. Supplying and laying of CWPM, SPH and Steel
tank at Nedumkandam.
9. Supply, erection and commissioning of
Transformer and pump sets for all zones, Power
connection and electrification.
10. Construction of a new 35 MLD capacity water
treatment plant.
11. Supply and erection of Floating Pumphouse.
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:149:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
12. Soil Investigation at Anchuruli WTP for Two
Clariflocculators.
13. Soil Investigation at Anchuruli WTP for Aerator
and Flash Mixer.
14. Soil Investigation at Anchuruli WTP for Filter
hose and Settling tank.”
97. Under the heading ‘SCOPE OF WORK’ in Clause 2, it
is clearly mentioned that this tender is invited as lump sum
tender for the following works;
“i. Supply and laying 100mm, 150mm and 200mm DI K9
pipe lines.
ii. Supply and laying 90mm 8kg/10kg/16kg HDPE pipe
lines.
Iii. Providing FHTC to households in Nedumkandam
panchayaths.
iv. Road restoration work:
a) Restoration of earthen berm
Restore the earthen berm after pipe laying using
granular sub base and compaction to required level.
b) Restoration of interlock tile
Restore the interlock tile after pipe laying after
providing sub base and base using GSB, WMM etc.
including compaction.
c) Restoration of concrete portion
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:150:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
Restore the concrete portion of road after pipe laying
after providing sub base and base using GSB, WMM
including compaction and PCC/RCC 1:3:6 and M20
d) Restoration of bituminous surface
Restore the bituminous portion of road after pipe laying
after providing sub base and base, surface course using
GSB, WMM, BM and BC with necessary compaction.”
98. Under the special conditions for JJM contract, in
Clause 12, it is stated as under:
“Any work shall be considered as completed only
when the FHTCs are completed, commissioned,
Geo tagged and incorporated in the GIS mapping
with required attributes as instructed for the as-
built drawings.”
99. Clause 8.14.1 of the tender condition Part II refers to
repayment of security deposit, which is stated as follows:
“For pipe laying works alone, the work will be treated
as "completed" when it is ready for commissioning of
all allied civil works with anchor blocks and thrust
blocks including fitting of all valves, specials etc.
without any gap closing works in the pipe line
alignment and after completion of testing of pipe line
laid. The completion Certificate will be issued by the
concerned Assistant Executive Engineer in charge of
the work within one month. Security deposit will be
released as per the modified conditions on the grant
of completion certificate as specified above. Release of
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:151:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
performance guarantee, additional performance
guarantee and performance security deposit will be as
per GO(P) No.429/15 Fin dated Thiruvananthapuram
28/09/2015, GO(P)No. 19 / 2016 / 2016 / Fin dtd
03.02.2016, GO(P)No.124/2016/Fin dated
29/08/2016, GO(P) No.168/2018/Fin dtd 02.11.2018
and GO(P)No.1/2019/Fin/dtd 10.01.2019, (Copies of
GOs given separately).”
100. In Clause 8.22, it is stated that it is necessary to
ensure that the structure, equipment, pipelines and fittings
which form part of the work comply with the specifications and
shall be carried out at the site at the contractor’s cost. If the
completed work or any portion thereof is found to be defective
before the works executed by the contractor are taken over by
the Authority, the Executive Engineer will give the contractor a
notice in writing setting forth the particulars of such defects
and the contractor shall forthwith make the defective part, good
or replace the same for satisfying the requirements of the
contract. If the contractor refuses to comply with the
instructions of the Executive Engineer within the specified
period, the contractor is liable to be penalized as per Clause
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:152:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
8.10, which deals with the imposition of penalty. The probable
amount of the contract for the JJM was 54,71,17,200/-. ₹
Clause 8.6 refers to the payment to the contractor. Clause
8.16.1 requires the tenderers to furnish a break-up for interim
payments, in line with form BoQ limiting the amounts of such
interim payments to the actual cost of work at the various
stages, along with the tender itself. All such interim payments
shall be in line with the percentage progress indicated in the
schedule of the bar chart and have been achieved at site from
time to time. The authority reserves the right to modify the
percentage weight of each component of the project with respect
to the total project cost based on the physical and financial
implications of each of the components before the award of
contract and this modified schedule, approved by the
Superintending Engineer, shall form part of the agreement and
this approved breakup of cost of the project shall form the basis
for part payments to the contractor. For the purpose of
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:153:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
payments, the bills are categorized in five as mentioned in
Clause 8.16.2 which reads as under;
“(a) Part-Bill Running Account Bill-Work in progress
(b) Part-Bill-Running Account Bill-Work completed
commissioning pending.
(c) Part-Bill-Running Account Bill-Testing and
commissioning completed.
(d) Part-Bill-Running Account Bill-Part Maintenance
Period
(e) Part and Final Bill/Final Bill-Contracts scope
completed.”
101. In terms of Clause 8.16.6, the contractor shall
prepare and submit the bills for payment with details of
measurements for the quantum of work done. The
measurements will be verified by the competent Engineer in
charge of the work and transferred to the measurement group
issued by the Authority for this purpose and submitted to the
Executive Engineer in charge of the work. No work will be paid
for unless thoroughly proved and fully in accordance with the
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:154:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
specifications. The tender condition in Part-II has referred to
mobilisation advance in Clause 8.8 which reads as follows:
“ Clause 8.8. Mobilisation advance
No mobilization advance shall be paid to the
contractor. However the contractor shall raise a
claim for 80% of the value of the tested materials
(pipes) he has supplied at site, at the estimate
rate/quoted rate whichever is less and in
accordance with the break up of payment approved
as secured advance, which shall be considered by
the authority in accordance with the relevant
provisions of the rules for release of as secured
advance in KWA. Sanctioning of such secured
advances shall be at the discretion of agreement
authority and shall not be taken as a right of the
contractor.”
(emphasis supplied)
102. The said clause would show that the contractor shall
raise a claim for 80% of the value of the tested materials he has
supplied at site, at the estimated or quoted rate whichever is
less and in accordance with the break-up of payment approved
as a secured advance. The procedures for supply and testing
materials are mentioned in Part-III of the tender conditions in
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:155:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
Clauses 9.14.1.1, 9.14.1.2, 9.14.1.3, 9.14.1.4, 9.14.1.5,
9.14.1.6, which read as follows:
“9.14.1.1 All materials shall be supplied by the
contractor in a phased manner as per the phased
supply schedule prepared by the agreement
executing authority. Quantity and time of each
supply shall be specifically mentioned in this
schedule in tune with the time of completion.
9.14.1.2 Schedule for phased supply of pipes and
specials shall be prepared by the agreement
executing authority based on the following
criteria: a) Targeted progress of pipe laying works
b) Availability of permission from other agencies
(PWD, NH, NHAI, KSTP, KRFB, Corporation,
Panchayath, etc.) for laying pipes.
9.14.1.3 Each supply of material shall be done by
the Contractor only after getting written
instruction from the Executive Engineer
concerned.
9.14.1.4 The Executive Engineer in – charge shall
direct the Contractor to place supply order in
each phase after evaluating actual progress of
laying of pipes supplied in the previous phase.
9.14.1.5 Agreement executing authority shall have
the authority to modify the schedule for phased
supply of remaining materials during the progress
of work, if there is variation from the targeted
progress.
9.14.1.6: On each supply, contractor may submit
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:156:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
bills for materials supplied not exceeding 80% of
estimate rate/quoted rate of materials, whichever
is less.”
(emphasis supplied)
103. The accepted schedule appended to the contract
document is divided into 5, which reads as follows:
“1. Supply and laying distribution system in
Nedumkandam Panchayath – cost of materials.
2. Supply and laying distribution system in
Nedumkandam Panchayath – working charges.
3. Providing FHTCs
4. Road restoration charges.
5. Road restoration charges – LSGD Roads.”
104. Clause 8.15.1 differs in a few matters. As in
W.A. No.1458 of 2026, the bidder will be required to quote a
lump sum amount for the work in the prescribed form and in
W.A. No.1323 of 2026, Clause 8.15.1 requires the bidder to
quote item rate for the work in the prescribed form provided in
the tender document. In the contract agreement entered into
between the KWA and the individual bidders, it is specifically
stated that the said agreement is as per the accompanying
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:157:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
agreement, plans, specifications and conditions of the contract
approved by the Superintending Engineer, KWA and by way of
illustration reference, can be made to the Agreement
th
No.20/2024-25/SE/ OHC/ISNR dated 18 May, 2024 between
M/s. Strefa Projects Pvt. Ltd. and the KWA, the other party for
the work of Jal Jeevan Mission where the accompanying
documents are as follows:
“1) Work Order No.KWA/PHC/KNR/D2-1597C/2022
dated 14/03/2024.
2) NIT Vol I & Vol II of tender forming part of
Agreement.
3) Memo of work tendered.
4) Proceedings No.KWA/CE/NR/KKD/D2-225/2023-
24 dated 14/03/2024 of Chief Engineeer, Northern
Region, Kozhikode.”
105. In this context, we would refer to the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.K.Abraham (supra) , relied upon
by the appellants to show that the standard printed clauses
would be inapplicable in the present commercial contract. In
M.K.Abraham (supra) , the issues that came up for
consideration were whether (i) the terms of the articles of
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:158:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
agreement would prevail over the terms of the tender notice;
and (ii) the terms of the cyclostyled amendment scheme would
prevail over the terms of the printed articles of agreement. The
said two issues were answered in the context of the
enforceability of the arbitration clause in the contract.
106. In and about 1986, the Kerala Government took a
decision to delete the provision of arbitration clause in PWD
contracts. As a consequence, the standard form of “notice
inviting tenders for works” and the standard form of agreement
contain specific printed conditions which bar arbitration.
Further, the Preamble to the standard form of agreement also
clearly states that the contractor also signed the copy of Madras
Detailed Standard Specifications excluding the clauses relating
to arbitration contained therein.
107. The Hon’ble Apex Court was seized with the situation
where the contracts are entered into for National Highway
projects and not a regular PWD contract. The National Highway
projects has special provisions relating to arbitrations which do
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:159:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
not find a place in the Kerala PWD contracts. The Apex Court
held that, if the contract was entered into by the State
Government PWD, the said bar against arbitration would
necessarily operate. However, since the said contract is not a
regular PWD contract, but a contract relating to another
agency, namely, the National Highway Projects, merely because
the standard forms of PWD were used for entering into
contracts, or because the contracts were executed through the
State Government PWD, it cannot be contended that special
provisions applicable to National Highway Projects specifically
added to the contract should be ignored. In the aforesaid
context, the following observations have been made:
“21. If a contract consists of a printed form with
cyclostyled amendments, typed additions and
deletions and handwritten corrections, an
endeavour shall be made to give effect to all the
provisions. However, in the event of apparent or
irreconcilable inconsistency, the following rules of
construction will normally apply:
(i) The cyclostyled amendments will prevail over the
printed terms;
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:160:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
(ii) The typewritten additions will prevail over the
printed terms and cyclostyled amendments;
(iii) Handwritten corrections will prevail over the
printed terms, cyclostyled amendments and
typewritten additions.
The above rules have evolved from the well-known
maxim of construction that “written, stamped or
typed additions, when inconsistent with the printed
terms, would normally prevail over the printed
terms” and proceeds on the assumption that the
printed form contained the original terms, and
changes thereto were incorporated by the
cyclostyled amendments, followed by changes by
typewritten additions and lastly the handwritten
additions. The logical explanation for such
assumption is this: the printed form contains
standardised terms to suit all contracts and
situations. It is not drafted with reference to the
special features of a specific contract. When such a
standard form is used with reference to a specific
contract, it becomes necessary to modify the
standard/general terms by making additions/
alterations/deletions, to provide for the special
features of that contract. This is done either by way
of an attachment of an annexure to the standard
printed form, incorporating the changes, or by
carrying out the required additions/
alterations/deletions in the standard form itself.
Such additions/alterations/deletions are done by
typing/stamping/hand.
22. We may refer to the following oftquoted
enunciation of the legal position by Lord
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:161:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
Ellenborough in Robertson v. French [(1803-13) All
ER Rep 350] with reference to printed form of
contract with handwritten additions: (All ER p. 353
C-D)
“… that the words superadded in writing … are
entitled, nevertheless, if there should be any
reasonable doubt on the sense and meaning of the
whole, to have a greater effect attributed to them
than to the printed words, inasmuch as the written
words are the immediate language and terms
selected by the parties themselves for the
expression of their meaning and the printed words
are a general formula adapted equally to their case
and that of all other contracting parties on similar
occasions and subjects.”
23. Another parallel principle that is equally
relevant is that where the contract has several
annexures/attachments, prepared at different
points of time, unless a contrary intention is
apparent, the latter in point of time would normally
prevail over the earlier in point of time.
24. In the present case, as noticed above, the
contract consists of a typewritten contract
agreement between the appellant and the second
respondent [which does not contain any terms and
conditions, but which merely states that the
contract is for execution of the described work as
per the accompanying articles of agreement, plan,
specification and conditions of contract approved by
the Project Director (SE), National Highway (ADB),
Circle Adappally, Cochin] with several printed forms
with cyclostyled additions as annexures and
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:162:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
handwritten corrections. The printed form of articles
of agreement has an attachment slip.
26. By applying the well-settled principles relating
to construction of contract the following position will
emerge:
(i) the terms of the articles of agreement will prevail
over the terms of notice inviting tenders for works,
and
(ii) the term contained in the cyclostyled attachment
to the printed form of articles of agreement will
prevail over the terms of the printed articles of
agreement.
Consequently, the contents of the attachment slip to
the printed form of articles of agreement providing
for arbitration will prevail over the bar on arbitration
contained in the notice inviting tenders for works
and the articles of agreement. As a result, it has to
be held that there is a provision for arbitration in
regard to the disputes between the respective
appellant and the respondents.”
(emphasis supplied)
108. The said decision in M.K. Abraham (supra) , in view
of the accompanying documents mentioned, inter alia, in
paragraph 104, is clearly distinguishable. Moreover, it is a
cardinal rule of interpretation of a contract that no term can be
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:163:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
implied into a contract if it contradicts or is inconsistent with
the express terms of the contract.
109. The modern theory of interpretation and construction
of contracts subscribes to an objective theory of contract
interpretation. This means that the subjective intentions of the
parties are generally irrelevant as evidence of the meaning of
the agreement, as are details of their negotiations. The
appellants have emphatically argued that having regard to the
nature of the contract, the court is required to apply the
“business efficacy test” and relied strongly upon the decisions
in D.N. Revri & Co. (supra), Cox and Kings Limited (supra)
and Nabha Power Ltd. (supra) .
110. In D.N. Revri & Co. (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme
Court considered the appointment of an arbitrator by the
Secretary, Ministry of Food and Agriculture Department on a
request from Union of India under Clause (17) of the contract.
The arbitrator entered reference and passed the award. The
application for passing the decree in terms of the award was,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:164:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
however, resisted by Revri, who sought to set aside the award,
challenging the validity of the arbitrator’s appointment and
contending that the arbitration agreement under Clause (17)
was made by only one of the partners, and was not binding on
the others. This was rejected and an appeal to the High Court
was allowed on the ground that on bifurcation of the Ministries,
Clause (17) of the contract became dead and could not be
revived on their re-integration.
111. It appears that the arbitrator was appointed by the
Secretary, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, and before the
arbitrator was appointed, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture
was bifurcated into two separate Ministries and the subject
matter of contract was allotted to the Ministry of Food. Revri
took the stand that there was no longer any Secretary in the
non-existent Ministry of Food and Agriculture and Clause (17)
of the contract was a dead-letter. The proposal of the Union of
India to amend Clause (17) to suit the changed circumstances
was rejected by the judgment debtor. Thereafter, the two
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:165:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
Ministries were reintegrated into a Ministry of Food &
Agriculture and two Secretaries were put incharge of the two
departments. The Secretary, Food Department, on a request
from the Union of India under Clause (17), appointed the
arbitrator. In the aforesaid context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed as follows:
“Now, clause (17) of the contract provided that all
disputes arising out of the contract shall be
resolved by arbitration. It embodied an arbitration
agreement between the parties. It also laid down
the machinery for appointment of the arbitrator. It
provided that the arbitrator shall be nominated by
the Secretary in the Ministry of Food and
Agriculture in his absolute discretion. There was
undoubtedly a Ministry of Food and Agriculture at
the time when the contract was made and there
was one and only one Secretary in that Ministry, so
that at the date of the contract there could no
question as to who was the person authorised to
nominate the arbitrator. The same position
continued to obtain also at the time when disputes
arose between the parties. But before an arbitrator
could be nominated by the Secretary in the Ministry
of Food and Agriculture to adjudicate upon these
disputes, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture was
bifurcated into two separate ministries and it
ceased to exist as Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
Then obviously there was no individual who filled
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:166:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
the description of “Secretary in the Ministry of Food
and Agriculture” and consequently the machinery
for appointment of the arbitrator became
unworkable. If the matter had rested there, a
question could well have arisen whether, despite
the breakdown of the machinery for nomination of
an arbitrator, the arbitration agreement in clause
(17) could still be enforced by the court by
appointing an arbitrator in a proceeding under
Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. But the position
again changed and the Ministry of Food and
Agriculture came into being as a result of
integration of the Ministry of Food and the Ministry
of Agriculture, with this change, namely that the
new Ministry of Food and Agriculture had two
departments, one of Food and the other of
Agriculture and there was a Secretary in charge of
each department. There were thus, after
integration, two Secretaries in the Ministry of Food
and Agriculture and the argument of the
respondents was — and that argument found
favour with the High Court — that this event
rendered the arbitration agreement vague and
uncertain, inasmuch as it did not specify which of
the two Secretaries was to nominate the arbitrator
“in his absolute discretion”. Though this argument
appears attractive at first sight, a little scrutiny will
reveal that it is unsound. It is based on a highly
technical and doctrinaire approach and is opposed
to plain common sense.
It must be remembered that a contract is a
commercial document between the parties and it
must be interpreted in such a manner as to give
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:167:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
efficacy to the contract rather than to invalidate it.
It would not be right while interpreting a contract,
entered into between two lay parties, to apply strict
rules of construction which are ordinarily
applicable to a conveyance and other formal
documents. The meaning of such a contract must
be gathered by adopting a common sense approach
and it must not be allowed to be thwarted by a
narrow, pedantic and legalistic interpretation.
More, at the time when the arbitrator came to be
nominated and the reference was made, there was
a Ministry of Food and Agriculture and there was a
Secretary in that ministry, but the only difficulty,
according to the High Court, was that there were,
instead of one, two Secretaries and it could not be
predicated as to which Secretary was intended to
exercise the power of nominating an arbitrator. We
do not think this difficulty is at all real. Let us
consider, for a moment, why in clause (17), the
power to nominate an arbitrator was conferred on
the Secretary in the Ministry of Food and
Agriculture and not on a Secretary in any other
ministry. The reason obviously was that at the date
of the contract the Secretary in the Ministry of Food
and Agriculture was the officer dealing with the
subject-matter of the contract. If this object and
reason of the provision of clause (17) is kept in
mind, it will become immediately clear that the
“Secretary in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture”
authorised to nominate an arbitrator was the
Secretary in charge of the Department of Food who
was concerned with the subject-matter of the
contract. The Secretary in charge of the Department
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:168:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
of Food filled the description “Secretary in the
Ministry of Food and Agriculture” given in clause
(17). The respondents relied strongly on the use of
the definite article “the” before the words
“Secretary in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture”
and urged that what the parties to the contract had
in mind was not a Secretary in the Ministry of Food
and Agriculture, but the Secretary in the Ministry of
Food and Agriculture and that clearly postulated
one definite Secretary in the Ministry of Food and
Agriculture and not one of two secretaries in that
ministry. This is, in our opinion, a hypertechnical
argument which seeks to make a fortress out of the
dictionary and ignores the plain intendment of the
contract. We fail to see why the Secretary in the
Ministry of Food and Agriculture in charge of the
Department of Food could not be described as the
Secretary. He would be the Secretary in the
Ministry of Food and Agriculture concerned with the
subject-matter of the contract and clearly and
indubitably he would be the person intended by the
parties to exercise the power of nominating the
arbitrator. The parties to the contract obviously
could not be expected to use the words “a Secretary
in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture”, because
their intendment was not that any Secretary in the
Ministry of Food and Agriculture should be entitled
to exercise the power of nominating an arbitrator,
but it should only be the Secretary in the Ministry of
Food and Agriculture concerned with the subject-
matter of the contract. That is why the use of the
definite article “the”. It is also significant to note
that when the Secretary in charge of the
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:169:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
Department of Food in the Ministry of Food and
Agriculture nominated the arbitrator, the
respondents did not raise any objection to the
appointment of the arbitrator and participated in
the arbitration proceedings without any protest.
The respondents knew at that time that there were
two Secretaries in the Ministry of Food and
Agriculture and the appointment of the arbitrator
was made by the Secretary in charge of the
Department of Food and yet they acquiesced in the
appointment of the arbitrator and took part in the
proceedings. This circumstance is also clearly
indicative of the intendment of the parties that the
Secretary in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture
concerned with the subject-matter of the contract
should be the person entitled to nominate the
arbitrator. Or else the respondents would have
objected to the appointment of the arbitrator and
declined to participate in the arbitration
proceedings or at any rate, participated under
protest. We are, therefore, of the view that the
arbitrator was validly nominated by the Secretary
in charge of the Department of Food in the Ministry
of Food and Agriculture.”
(emphasis supplied)
112. In Cox and Kings (supra) , the decision in D.N.
Revri and Co. (supra) was considered by a Constitution Bench
of five Hon’ble Judges of the Apex Court. The reference before
the Constitution Bench essentially concerned the question
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:170:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
whether the expression “claiming through or under,” as
occurring in Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, could be interpreted so as to encompass
the Group of Companies doctrine. In discussing the Group of
Companies doctrine, the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the
views in D.N. Revri and Co. (supra) and a subsequent decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A. Ayyasamy v. A.
27
Paramasivam . The said decisions were considered in the
context of arbitration law, particularly to understand and
appreciate the parties intention to become parties to the
arbitration agreement. The Apex Court, inter alia , has held as
follows:
“96. In most situations, the language of the contract is
only suggestive of the intention of the signatories to
such contract and not the non-signatories. However,
there may arise situations where a person or entity
may not sign an arbitration agreement, yet give the
appearance of being a veritable party to such
arbitration agreement due to their legal relationship
with the signatory parties and involvement in the
performance of the underlying contract. Especially in
27
(2016) 10 SCC 386
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:171:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
cases involving complex transactions involving
multiple parties and contracts, a non-signatory may
be substantially involved in the negotiation or
performance of the contractual obligations without
formally consenting to be bound by the ensuing
burdens, including arbitration.
97. In A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam [A. Ayyasamy
v. A. Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386: (2017) 1 SCC
(Civ) 79] , this Court observed that it is the duty of the
Courts “to impart to that commercial understanding a
sense of business efficacy”. The Courts must interpret
contracts in a manner that would give them a sense
of efficacy rather than invalidating the commercial
interests of the parties. The meaning of the contract
must be gathered by adopting a common sense
approach, which should “not be allowed to be
thwarted by a narrow, pedantic and legalistic
interpretation”. [Union of India v. D.N. Revri & Co.,
(1976) 4 SCC 147] Therefore, there is a need to adopt
a modern approach to consent, which takes into
consideration the circumstances, apparent conduct,
and commercial facets of business transactions.
xx xxxx xxxx
100. ... On the one hand, the Courts and tribunals
cannot lightly brush aside the decision of the parties
to not make a person or entity a party to the
arbitration agreement. The fact that the non-signatory
did not put pen to paper may be an indicator of its
intention to not assume any rights or responsibilities
under the arbitration agreement. On the other hand,
courts and tribunals cannot adopt a rigid approach to
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:172:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
exclude all persons or entities who, through their
conduct and relationship with the signatory parties,
intended to be bound by the underlying contract
containing the arbitration agreement. The area of
arbitration law not only concerns domestic law, but it
also encompasses the international law, particularly
when it pertains to the enforcement of international
arbitral awards. Therefore, this Court ought to adopt
a balanced approach without comprising (quaere
compromising) on the basic principles of arbitration
law, contract law, and company law to ensure that
the resultant legal framework is consistent with
internationally accepted practices and principles.”
(emphasis supplied)
113. In Nabha Power Ltd. (supra) , dispute was about
interpretation of the provisions of Power Purchase Agreement
th
(in short, ‘PPA’) dated 18 January 2010. It was in relation to
the selection of developer through an international competitive
bidding initiated by the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB)
in the year 2009. After the bidding process was completed, M/s
L&T Power Development Ltd. (L&T PDL) was declared as the
th
successful bidder and a letter of intent was issued on 19
th
November 2009. Thereafter on 18 January 2010, a share
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:173:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
purchase agreement (SPA) was entered into between PSEB and
L&T PDL transferring 100% of the shares of NPL to L&T PDL.
Similarly, PPA was entered into between PSEB and NPL. The
contractual obligation began of the respective parties.
114. During the discharge of the contractual obligations,
controversy arose by and between the parties, some of which
were resolved, but the controversy relating to deductions made
st
by the 1 respondent PSEB from the amount due and payable
under the invoices had remained and ultimately, the matter
was resolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The unresolved
disputes were as follows:
“(i) Component of the cost of purchasing coal
comprising washing related costs including washery
charges and cost of coal towards loss of quantity on
account of washing (yield loss);
(i) Consideration of midpoint of GCV of ROM coal on
equilibrated GCV basis (EGCV) to calculate energy
charges;
(iii) Denial of road transportation cost-at the plant-end
and at the mine-end;
(iv) Denial of liaising charges, denial of transit and
handling losses and denial of third party coal testing
charges; and
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:174:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
(v) Non-payment of capacity charges for the period
from 20-2-2014 to 3-3-2014 when the availability
was declared on non-linkage (alternate) coal.”
115. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering
interpretation of a commercial contract.
116. Before we refer to the ratio of the said decision, it is
necessary to refer to Clause 2.7.1.4(3) of the Request for
Proposal (RFP), which reads as follows:
“ While submitting the financial bid, Clause
2.7.1.4(3) of RFP required the tariff to be quoted in
Format I of Annexure 4 to be an “all inclusive tariff”
and provided that no exclusion shall be allowed. The
bidder/appellant was, thus, required to take into
account all costs, including capital and operational
costs, statutory taxes, etc. The same clause also
provides that the availability of inputs necessary for
generation of power should be ensured by the seller
at the “project site”, which must be reflected in the
quoted tariff. The significant aspect is that the
working of the contract is on the basis of “project
site”. It has to be, however, simultaneously kept in
mind that the present project is in the nature of a
Case 2 project which provides for a fuel specific
procurement, having pre-identified site.”
117. The relevant facts taken into consideration by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court before laying down the rules of
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:175:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
interpretation of commercial contract, are stated in paragraph
Nos. 50 to 55 of the judgment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
the said paragraphs, considered clause 2.7.1.4(3) of the RFP
that require the tariff to be quoted in Format I of Annexure 4 to
be an all inclusive tariff and provided that no exclusion shall be
allowed. Schedule 7 of PPA provides for tariff payment and its
computation. The monthly energy charges form part of Clause
1.2.3 of Schedule 7. The variable component of the weighted
average actual cost of the coal to the seller refers to the “actual”
cost to the seller/appellant of the three components, i.e., (a)
purchasing; (b) transporting; and (c) unloading the coal. In view
of the specific formula provided, only three aspects relatable to
coal would determine the particular co-efficient.
118. These three expressions are thereafter followed by
the stipulation that the coal has to be recently supplied “to and
at the project”.
119. These expressions, followed by the aforesaid phrase,
have been interpreted to mean that the word “to” obviously
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:176:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
refers to transporting, while the word “at” relates to unloading
since it would be “transporting to” and “unloading at”. Any
other construction will fail to make grammatical sense. Not
only, that, all the three i.e., purchasing, transporting and
unloading, have a reference to “the Project”. Thus, the definition
of coal in the weighted average actual cost incurred by the
appellant of purchasing the coal and transporting it to the
project site and thereafter unloading the coal at the project site.
The fact that the property in coal passed on to the appellant
vis-a-vis SECL, on delivery being taken at the mine-end would
not change the definition of coal pricing as is required for the
purpose of calculation of the tariff.
120. In the aforesaid context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has, on consideration of both Indian and Foreign authorities on
the subject, observed that parties indulging in commerce act in
a commercial sense. It is this ground rule which is the basis of
The Moorcock case, (1889) LR 14 PD 64 (CA) test of giving
"business efficacy" to the transaction, as must have been
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:177:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
intended at all events by both business parties. The
development of law saw the "five condition test" for an implied
condition to be read into the contract including the "business
efficacy" test. It also sought to incorporate "the Officious
Bystander Test" [Shirlaw case, (1939) 2 KB 206]. This test has
been set out in B.P. Refinery (Westernport) Proprietary Ltd.
case, 1977 UKPC 13 requiring the requisite conditions to be
satisfied: (1) reasonable and equitable; (2) necessary to give
business efficacy to the contract; (3) it goes without saying i.e.
the Officious Bystander Test; (4) capable of clear expression;
and (5) must not contradict any express term of the contract.
The same penta-principles find reference also in Investors
Compensation Scheme Ltd. case, (1998) 1 WLR 896 and
Attorney General of Belize case, (2009) 1 WLR 1988 (PC).
Needless to say that the application of these principles would
not be to substitute the Court's own view of the presumed
understanding of commercial terms by the parties if the terms
are explicit in their expression. The explicit terms of a contract
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:178:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
are always the final word with regard to the intention of the
parties. The multi-clause contract inter se the parties has,
thus, to be understood and interpreted in a manner that any
view, on a particular clause of the contract, should not do
violence to another part of the contract.
121. In Nabha Power Ltd. (supra) , at paragraphs 49 and
72, it was held as follows:
“49. We now proceed to apply the aforesaid principles
which have evolved for interpreting the terms of a
commercial contract in question. Parties indulging in
commerce act in a commercial sense. It is this ground
rule which is the basis of The Moorcock [The Moorcock,
(1889) LR 14 PD 64 (CA)] test of giving “business
efficacy” to the transaction, as must have been intended
at all events by both business parties. The development
of law saw the “five condition test” for an implied
condition to be read into the contract including the
“business efficacy” test. It also sought to incorporate “the
Officious Bystander Test” [Shirlaw v. Southern
Foundries (1926) Ltd. [Shirlaw v. Southern Foundries
(1926) Ltd., (1939) 2 KB 206 : (1939) 2 All ER 113 (CA)] ].
This test has been set out in B.P. Refinery (Westernport)
Proprietary Ltd. v. Shire of Hastings [B.P. Refinery
(Westernport) Proprietary Ltd. v. Shire of Hastings, 1977
UKPC 13 : (1977) 180 CLR 266 (Aus)] requiring the
requisite conditions to be satisfied: (1) reasonable and
equitable; (2) necessary to give business efficacy to the
contract; (3) it goes without saying i.e. the Officious
Bystander Test; (4) capable of clear expression; and (5)
must not contradict any express term of the contract. The
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:179:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
same penta-principles find reference also in Investors
Compensation Scheme Ltd. v. West Bromwich Building
Society [Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd. v. West
Bromwich Building Society, (1998) 1 WLR 896 : (1998) 1
All ER 98 (HL)] and Attorney General of Belize v. Belize
Telecom Ltd. [Attorney General of Belize v. Belize
Telecom Ltd., (2009) 1 WLR 1988 (PC)] Needless to say
that the application of these principles would not be to
substitute this Court's own view of the presumed
understanding of commercial terms by the parties if the
terms are explicit in their expression. The explicit terms
of a contract are always the final word with regard to
the intention of the parties. The multi-clause contract
inter se the parties has, thus, to be understood and
interpreted in a manner that any view, on a particular
clause of the contract, should not do violence to another
part of the contract.
72. We may, however, in the end, extend a word of
caution. It should certainly not be an endeavour of
commercial courts to look to implied terms of contract. In
the current day and age, making of contracts is a matter
of high technical expertise with legal brains from all
sides involved in the process of drafting a contract. It is
even preceded by opportunities of seeking clarifications
and doubts so that the parties know what they are
getting into. Thus, normally a contract should be read as
it reads, as per its express terms. The implied terms is a
concept, which is necessitated only when the Penta test
referred to aforesaid comes into play. There has to be a
strict necessity for it. In the present case, we have really
only read the contract in the manner it reads. We have
not really read into it any “implied term” but from the
collection of clauses, come to a conclusion as to what the
contract says. The formula for energy charges, to our
mind, was quite clear. We have only expounded it in
accordance to its natural grammatical contour, keeping
in mind the nature of the contract.”
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:180:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
(emphasis supplied)
122. It is also not permissible for the Court to make a
new contract, however reasonable, which the parties have not
made themselves. A term cannot be implied simply because it is
reasonable to do so or that it would make the performance of
the contract more just, convenient or beneficial to one party.
The subject contract had been entered into in detail and was a
carefully drafted commercial contract. The contract was a
business transaction which both parties had consciously
undertaken. The parties at the time of entering into the
contract were best placed to judge and protect their interests in
the bargaining process. Freedom of contract is the general rule.
There is nothing obvious about the implied term which must be
incorporated by necessary implication without which the whole
contract would become meaningless. Consequently, resort to
the principle of business efficacy to read an implied term into
the contract was wholly unfair and unreasonable. [ Satya Jain
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:181:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
(Dead) Through Lrs. v. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (Dead) Through
28
Lrs. ].
29
123. In Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd. v. Gujarat ERC ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the said principle
as under:
“24. It could thus be seen that it is more than well
settled that the clauses in the agreement ought to be
given the plain, literal and grammatical meaning of
the expression used in the same. No doubt, that the
courts will also try to gather as to what intention the
parties wanted to give them. The principle of
business efficacy could be invoked only if by a plain
literal interpretation of the term in the agreement or
the contract, it is not possible to achieve the result or
the consequence intended by the parties acting as
prudent businessmen. This test requires that a term
can only be implied, if it is necessary to give business
efficacy to the contract, to avoid such a failure of
consideration that the parties cannot as reasonable
businessmen have intended. If the contract makes
business sense without the term, the Courts will not
imply the same. It is amply clear that Courts can
imply a clause only if it is found that the plain and
literal meaning given to the expression used in the
terms is not in a position to make out the intention of
the parties. Reading an unexpressed term in an
agreement would be justified on the basis that such
28
(2013) 8 SCC 131
29
(2019) 19 SCC 9
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:182:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
a term was always and obviously intended by and
between the parties thereto. An unexpressed term
can be implied if and only if the court finds that the
parties must have intended that term to form part of
their contract. It is not enough for the Court to find
that such a term would have been adopted by the
parties as reasonable men if it had been suggested to
them. It must have been a term that went without
saying, a term necessary to give business efficacy to
the contract, a term which, although tacit, forms part
of the contract. As held in Nabha Power Ltd. [Nabha
Power Ltd. v. Punjab SPCL, (2018) 11 SCC 508 :
(2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 1], for invoking the business
efficacy test and carving out an implied condition, not
expressly found in the language of the contract, the
following five conditions will have to be satisfied:
(SCC p. 540, para 49)
(1) Reasonable and equitable;
(2) Necessary to give business efficacy to the
contract;
(3) It goes without saying i.e. the Officious
Bystander Test;
(4) Capable of clear expression; and
(5) Must not contradict any express term of the
contract.”
124. The appellants have referred to the following Clauses
in support of their submissions that it is essentially a BoQ
contract and irrespective of the Clauses 8.8 and 9.14.1.6, this
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:183:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
argument is made to show that the accepted schedule in the
first part refers to the cost of materials and which is not to be
covered by Clauses 8.8 and 9.14.1.6. The relevant Clauses are
extracted below;
“ The Kerala Public Works Account Code
Definitions:- 2.1.1
2(25): Intermediate payment - Is the term applied to a
disbursement of any kind on a running account, not
being the final payment. It includes a “Secured Advance”
and an “On Account Payment” (other than the final
payment on a running account), or a combination of
these.
2(45): Secured advance - Is a term applied specially to an
advance made, on the security of materials brought to site
of works, to a contractor whose contract is for completed
items of work (See paragraph 10.2.33)
Forms of bills and vouchers: 10.2.16 to 10.2.21
10.2.18: Running Account Bill (Secured Advance)- K.P.W
Form 23A:-
This form is intended for contractors for work only.
It should be used in all cases, in which secured advances
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:184:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
are to be made or are already outstanding, in respect of
the same work, against the contractor. When this form is
used it should also be utilised for making on account
payment, if any, in respect of the work.
Preparation, examination and payment of bills:
10.2.22 to 10.2.31
10.2.22. Before the bill of a contractor is prepared, the
entries in the measurement book relating to the
description and quantities of work or supplies should be
scrutinized by the Sub-divisional Officer and the
calculations of "contents or area" should be checked
arithmetically under his supervision. He need not work
out personally all "contents or area" but he is responsible
for the correctness of these entries. The rates allowed
should be entered by the Sub-divisional Officer in the
abstract of measurements – vide paragraph 10.2.11. (c)
The bill should then be prepared, from the measurement
entries, in one of the forms prescribed in paragraphs
10.2.16 to 10.2.21 applicable to the case. Full rates as
per agreement, catalogue, indent or other order should be
allowed only if the quality of work done or supplies made
is up to the stipulated specification. When the work or
supplies fall short of that standard, and under the
agreement, it is permissible to make a final payment if the
contract is determined, or an on account payment if the
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:185:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
contract is to run on, only such fraction of the full rate
should be allowed as is considered reasonable with due
regard to the work remaining to be done and the general
terms of the agreement.
Note (4)- As a general rule, payment for supplies is not
permissible until stores have been received and surveyed
and provision for the observance of this rule should be
made in all contracts for the supply of goods. In cases in
which the operation of this rule might result in hardship,
as for example, when costly stores are ordered from a
distant firm and delay in payment is anticipated, an
advance not exceeding 90 per cent of the value of the
consignment despatched may be paid to the firm on
receipt of the railway receipt of despatch, provided that
the firm is one approved by the Government and it is
distinctly made clear in the agreement or otherwise that
the payment is only of the nature of an advance. The
amount should be debited to the suspense account
"contractors" other transactions/Advance payments" in
the works abstract of stock/work concerned -vide Note 2
below paragraph 13.3.1.
Advances to contractors:10.2.33
10.2.33: Advances to contractors are, as a rule,
prohibited and every endeavor should be made to
maintain a system under which no payments are made
except for work actually done. Exceptions are however,
permitted in the following cases:-
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:186:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
(a) Advance payments for suppliers are governed by
the provision in Note 4 below paragraph 10.2.22.
(b) Cases in which a contractor, whose contract is
for finished work, re-quires an advance on the security of
materials brought to site, Divisional Officers may sanction
advances upto an amount not exceeding 75 per cent of
the value (as assessed by themselves) of such materials,
provided that they are of an imperishable nature and that
a formal agreement is drawn up with the contractor under
which Government secures alien on the materials and is
safeguarded against losses due to the shortage of misuse
of the materials, and against the expense on tailed for
their proper watch and safe custody. Payment of such
advances should be made only on the certificate of an
officer, not below the rank of Sub-divisional Officer, that
the quantities of materials upon which the advances are
made have actually been brought to site, that the
contractor has not previously received any advance on
that security and that the materials are all required by
the contractor for use on items of work for which rates for
finished work have been agreed upon. The officer granting
such a certificate will be held personally responsible for
any overpayment which may occur in consequence.
Recoveries of advances so made should not be postponed
until the whole of the work entrusted to the contractor is
completed. They should be made from his bills for work
done as the materials are used, the necessary deductions
being made whenever the items of work in which they are
used are billed for. The Divisional Officers are responsible
that:
(i) When secured advances have been made for
materials, recoveries are made regularly from the very
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:187:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
first payment made for those items of actual work in
which such materials have been used.
(ii) No secured advances are made for any materials
unless they are to be used within three months at the
most.
(iii) Materials are actually measured in detail (but
not entered in measurement book) before making secured
advances on them.
Note. -Imperishable materials include bricks, rolled
steel joists etc., while article such as lime, sand, kankar,
etc., are perishable.”
125. The principal contention urged on behalf of the
appellants is that the contract in question is an item-rate BoQ
contract and, therefore, upon completion of the supply item, the
appellants became entitled to payment at the accepted
contractual rate. According to the appellants, Clauses 8.8 and
9.14.1.6 of the NIT deal only with secured advances and have
no application where the contractual entitlement has already
accrued.
126. We have carefully examined the said contention in
the light of the contractual provisions and the principles
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:188:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
governing interpretation of commercial contracts.
127. Nothing can be more clearly established than
that, where there is an express contract between the parties,
they cannot resort to an implied one is of vintage origin dating
back to 1795 as held in Cutter Administratrix of Cutter v.
30
Powell , where the principle has been lucidly explained
as follows:
“Nothing can be more clearly established than that
where there is an express contract between the
parties, they cannot resort to an implied one. It is
only because the parties have not expressed what
their agreement was that the law implies what
they would have agreed to do had they entered
into a precise treaty: but when once they have
expressed what their agreement was, the law will
not imply any agreement at all. In this case the
intestate and the defendant reduced their
agreement into writing, by the terms of which they
must now be bound:”
(emphasis supplied)
128. In Manoharan D. (supra) , the intention test has
been lucidly stated at paragraphs 45, 49 and 50, which reads
as follows:
30
(1795) 6 Term Reports 320 : 101 E.R. 573
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:189:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
“45. There is no single mechanical or straight – jacket
formula that decides whether a contract is divisible or
indivisible. The English, Australian and Indian courts
have consistently treated the question as one of
construing the parties' intention, tested through
several converging indicia. In the construction /
intention test (the overarching principle), it is stated
that whether a contract is indivisible or divisible is
answered by construing the contract as a whole – its
terms, its mode of payment, and the circumstances
surrounding its making – to ascertain what the parties
actually intended.
49. Merely because a contract is structured as an item
– rate BoQ Contract, it does not cease to be a
composite works contract. Equally, the mere existence
of a composite works contract does not automatically
render every item comprised therein liable to cess.
50. The aforesaid principles cannot be mechanically
applied while interpreting S.3 of the Cess Act.
Although a works contract may be composite and
indivisible, cess is leviable only on the "cost of
construction". Therefore, the contractual character of
the agreement does not enlarge the charging provision
contained in S.3. A BoQ Contract does not, by itself,
render a works contract divisible. The BoQ is primarily
a contractual mechanism for measurement, valuation
and payment. Whether the contract is divisible
depends on the intention of the parties as reflected in
the contractual terms and not merely on the existence
of separately priced items. A BoQ may facilitate
identification of different components for valuation
purposes without altering the essential character of
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:190:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
the contract as an Indivisible or an entire works
contract.”
(emphasis supplied)
129. Much water has flown thereafter with the
development of commerce and the complex nature of
commercial contracts requiring interpretation by courts, as the
parties would be carrying conflicting and opposing ideas with
regard to the true nature of the contract, but remarkably the
first principle of interpretation of contract and its doctrinal
approach in Cutter Administratrix of Cutter (supra) still
holds the field.
130. Almost 90 years down the line in 1867 in Appleby
31
and Another v. MYERS it was held as follows:
“Where A. contracts to do work and supply
materials upon the premises of B. for a specific sum,
to be paid on completion of the whole, A. is not
entitled to recover anything until the whole work is
completed, unless it be shown that the performance
of his contract was prevented by the default of B.”
131. Lord Hoffmann gave his speech in Investors
31
[L.R.] 2 C.P. 651
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:191:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
Compensation Scheme v. West Bromwich Building
32
Society , in what became the starting point for disputes about
contractual interpretation; he said:
“I do not think that the fundamental change which has
overtaken this branch of the law, particularly as a result of
the speeches of Lord Wilberforce in Prenn v. Simmonds and
Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Hansen-Tangen, Hansen-Tangen
v. Sanko Steamship Co., [1976] 1 W.L.R. 989, is always
sufficiently appreciated. The result has been, subject to one
important exception, to assimilate the way in which such
documents are interpreted by judges to the common sense
principles by which any serious utterance would be
interpreted in ordinary life. Almost all the old intellectual
baggage of ‘legal’ interpretation has been discarded. The
principles may be summarized as follows:
i. Interpretation is the ascertainment of the meaning
which the document would convey to a reasonable
person having all the background knowledge which
would reasonably have been available to the parties in
the situation in which they were at the time of the
contract.
ii. The background was famously referred to by Lord
Wilberforce as the ‘matrix of fact’, but this phrase is, if
anything, an understated description of what the
background may include. Subject to the requirement
that it should have been reasonably available to the
parties and to the exception to be mentioned next, it
includes absolutely anything which would have
32
[1998] 1 W.L.R. 896
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:192:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
affected the way in which the language of the
document would have been understood by a
reasonable man.
iii. The law excludes from the admissible background
the previous negotiations of the parties and their
declarations of subjective intent. They are admissible
only in an action for rectification. The law makes this
distinction for reasons of practical policy and, in this
respect only, legal interpretation differs from the way
we would interpret utterances in ordinary life. The
boundaries of this exception are in some respects
unclear. But this is not the occasion on which to
explore them.
iv. The meaning which is a document (or any other
utterance) would convey to a reasonable man is not
the same thing as the meaning of its words. The
meaning of words is a matter of dictionaries and
grammars; the meaning of the document is what the
parties using those words against the relevant
background would reasonably have been understood
to mean. The background may not merely enable the
reasonable man to choose between the possible
meanings of words which are ambiguous but even
between the possible meanings of words which are
ambiguous but even (as occasionally happens in
ordinary life) to conclude that the parties must, for
whatever reason, have used the wrong words or
syntax (See Manai Investment Co Ltd. v. Eagle Star
Life Assurance Co Ltd.).
v. The ‘rule’ that words should be given their ‘natural
and ordinary meaning’ reflects the commonsense
proposition that we do not easily accept that people
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:193:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
have made linguistic mistakes, particular in formal
documents. On the other hand, if one would
nevertheless conclude from the background that
something must have gone wrong with the language,
the law does not require judges to attribute to the
parties an intention which they plainly could not have
had. Lord Diplock made this point more vigorously
when he said in Antaios Cia Naviera SA v. Salen
Rederierna AB, the Antaios:
‘…if detailed semantic and syntactical analysis of
words in a commercial contract is going to lead to a
conclusion that flouts business common sense, it must
be made to yield to business common sense.’”
(emphasis supplied)
132. Recently, in ABC Electrification Limited v.
33
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited , on consideration of a
catena of decisions dealing with the general principles of
contractual construction distilled those principles and held
as follows:
“18. A simple distillation, so far as material for present
purposes, can be set out uncontroversially as follows:
i) When interpreting a written contract, the court is concerned
to identify the intention of the parties by reference to what a
reasonable person having all the background knowledge
which would have been available to the parties would have
33
[2020] EWCA Civ 1645
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:194:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
understood them to be using the language in the contract to
mean. It does so by focussing on the meaning of the relevant
words in their documentary, factual and commercial context.
That meaning has to be assessed in the light of (i) the natural
and ordinary meaning of the clause, (ii) any other relevant
provisions of the contract, (iii) the overall purpose of the
clause and the contract, (iv) the facts and circumstances
known or assumed by the parties at the time that the
document was executed, and (v) commercial common sense,
but (vi) disregarding subjective evidence of any party's
intentions;
ii) The reliance placed in some cases on commercial common
sense and surrounding circumstances should not be invoked
to undervalue the importance of the language of the provision
which is to be construed. The exercise of interpreting a
provision involves identifying what the parties meant through
the eyes of a reasonable reader, and, save perhaps in a very
unusual case, that meaning is most obviously to be gleaned
from the language of the provision. Unlike commercial
common sense and the surrounding circumstances, the
parties have control over the language they use in a contract.
And, again save perhaps in a very unusual case, the parties
must have been specifically focussing on the issue covered
by the provision when agreeing the wording of that provision;
iii) When it comes to considering the centrally relevant words
to be interpreted, the clearer the natural meaning, the more
difficult it is to justify departing from it. The less clear they
are, or, to put it another way, the worse their drafting, the
more ready the court can properly be to depart from their
natural meaning. However, that does not justify the court
embarking on an exercise of searching for, let alone
constructing, drafting infelicities in order to facilitate a
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:195:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
departure from the natural meaning:
iv) Commercial common sense is not to be invoked
retrospectively. The mere fact that a contractual
arrangement, if interpreted according to its natural language,
has worked out badly, or even disastrously, for one of the
parties is not a reason for departing from the natural
language. Commercial common sense is only relevant to the
extent of how matters would or could have been perceived by
the parties, or by reasonable people in the position of the
parties, as at the date that the contract was made;
v) While commercial common sense is a very important factor
to take into account when interpreting a contract, a court
should be very slow to reject the natural meaning of a
provision as correct simply because it appears to be a very
imprudent term for one of the parties to have agreed, even
ignoring the benefit of wisdom of hindsight. The purpose of
interpretation is to identify what the parties have agreed, not
what the court thinks that they should have agreed.
Accordingly, when interpreting a contract a judge should
avoid re-writing it in an attempt to assist an unwise party or
to penalise an astute party;
vi) When interpreting a contractual provision, one can only
take into account facts or circumstances which existed at the
time the contract was made, and which were known or
reasonably available to both parties.”
(emphasis supplied)
133. The above principles have been summarised in
paragraph 19 of ABC Electrification Limited (supra) , as
follows:
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:196:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
“19 Thus the court is concerned to identify the intention
of the parties by reference to what a reasonable person
having all the background knowledge which would
have been available to the parties would have
understood them to be using the language in the
contract to mean. The court's task is to ascertain the
objective meaning of the language which the parties
have chosen to express their agreement. This is not a
literalist exercise; the court must consider the contract
as a whole and, depending on the nature, formality,
and quality of drafting of the contract, give more or less
weight to elements of the wider context in reaching its
view as to that objective meaning. The interpretative
exercise is a unitary one involving an iterative process
by which each suggested interpretation is checked
against the provisions of the contract and its
commercial consequences investigated .”
(emphasis supplied)
134 . To these five principles, a sixth principle should now
34
be added. In Re Sigma Finance Corp , Lord Mance, approving
Lord Neuberger's dissenting judgment in the Court of Appeal,
said at page 12 as follows:
“Lord Neuberger was right to observe that the
resolution of an issue of interpretation in a case like
the present is an iterative process, involving
‘checking each of the rival meanings against other
provisions of the document and investigating its
34
[2009] UKSC 2
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:197:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
commercial consequences.”
. The Court will construe the words used by the parties
135
in their agreement giving those words their natural and ordinary
meaning. What matters is the objective meaning of the language
used, to be derived from the natural usual meaning of the words
in the contract, when seen against the background/context of
the contract. Where there are rival interpretations, one test is to
consider which interpretation is more consistent with business
common sense.
136. Lord Hamblen in Alexander v. West Bromwich
35
Mortgage Company held that where there is an inconsistency
clause, one should therefore approach the question of
inconsistency without any pre-conceived assumptions. One
should not strive to avoid or to find inconsistency. Rather one
should 'approach the documents in a cool and objective spirit to
see whether there is inconsistency or not. [See observation of
the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Coulson in Dynniq UK Limited v.
35
[2016] EWCA Civ 496
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:198:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
36
Lancashire County Council ] . In Investors Compensation
Scheme (supra) , it was said that on occasion it may be possible
to conclude that the parties must, for whatever reason, have
used the wrong words or syntax, or something has gone wrong
with the language. In broad terms this conclusion can be
reached either because commercial common sense suggests it,
or because of some further evidence in the surrounding
circumstances. However, in most cases, as the UK Supreme
Court has reiterated, the language of the contract itself will be of
paramount importance:
“the reliance placed in some cases on commercial
common sense and surrounding circumstances (eg in
Chartbrook, paras 16-26) should not be invoked to
undervalue the importance of the language of the
provision which is to be construed. The exercise of
interpreting a provision involves identifying what the
parties meant through the eyes of a reasonable reader,
and, save perhaps in a very unusual case, that
meaning is most obviously to be gleaned from the
language of the provision. Unlike commercial common
sense and the surrounding circumstances, the parties
have control over the language they use in a contract.
And, again save perhaps in a very unusual case, the
parties must have been specifically focussing on the
issue covered by the provision when agreeing the
36
[2017| EWHC 3173 (TCC)]
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:199:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
wording of that provision.” [Arnold v. Britton (2015)
UKSC 36]
(emphasis supplied)
137. Lord Diplock in Pioneer Shipping Ltd. v. BTP
37
Tioxide Ltd. stated that:
“The object sought to be achieved in construing any
commercial contract is to ascertain what were the mutual
intentions of the parties as to the legal obligations each
assumed by the contractual words in which they …
choose to express them; or, perhaps more accurately,
what each would have led the other reasonably to
assume were the acts that he was promising to do or to
refrain from doing by the words in which the promises on
his part were expressed.”
(emphasis supplied)
138. The aforesaid principles only explain the legal
character of a BoQ Contract, Lump Sum contract and the
manner in which such contracts ordinarily operate. They do
not, however, dispense with the necessity of construing the
particular contractual stipulations agreed upon between the
parties. The controversy in the present case, therefore,
ultimately turns not upon the general characteristics of a BOQ
contract, but upon the true interpretation of Clauses 8.8 and
37
[1981] 2 All ER 1030 (at 1035)
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:200:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
9.14.1.6 forming part of the agreement.
139. At this stage, it is necessary to reproduce Clauses
8.15.1, 8.16, 8.16.2, 8.16.3, 8.16.4, 8.16.5, 8.16.6, 8.16.7,
8.16.8, 8.16.9, 8.16.10, 8.16.11, 8.16.12, 8.16.13, 8.16.14,
8.16.15 and Clause 7.1 of the Tender conditions, as follows:
“8.15 LUMPSUM AMOUNT/PERCENTAGE TO BE
QUOTED THE WORK
8.15.1 :Bidders shall quote lump sum Item Rate for
the work in the prescribed form provided in the
tender document and shall be uploaded
electronically. There shall not be any indication of
the bid amount in any of the documents/papers
of technical bid uploaded in which case the
tender shall be rejected outright. For payment
purposes, upon execution of agreement by the
successful bidder a payment schedule (Billing
breakup) shall be prepared by the agreement
authority in accordance with the sanctioned
estimate of Kerala Water Authority and shall form
the basis for billing.
8.16 PAYMENTS TO THE CONTRACTOR 8.16.1 :
The tenderers shall furnish a break-up for interim
payments in line with form BOQ limiting the
amounts of such interim payments to the actual
cost of work at the various stages, along with the
tender itself. The break – up of interim payments
approved by the Superintending Engineer shall
form part of the agreement. The break -up shall
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:201:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
be furnished in Cover B in the following manner.
a) The breakup of payments shall be expressed as
percentage of the total contract value.
b) The breakup of payments of each individual
component and sub break up for various stages
of a component of the work shall be given.
All such interim payments shall be in line with
the percentage progress indicated in the schedule
of bar chart and as achieved at site from time to
time. The Authority reserves the right to modify
the percentage weight of each component of the
project with respect to the total project cost based
on the physical and financial implication of each
of the components before the award of contract
and this modified schedule, approved by the
Superintending Engineer shall form part of the
agreement and this approved break up of cost of
the project shall form the basis for part payments
to the contractor.
8.16.2 : For the purposes of payments the bills are
categorized into five as:
(a) Part-Bill-Running Account Bill-Work in
progress
(b) Part-Bill-Running Account Bill-Work
completed commissioning pending.
(c) Part-Bill-Running Account Bill-Testing and
commissioning completed.
(d) Part-Bill-Running Account Bill-Part
Maintenance Period.
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:202:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
(e) Part and Final Bill/Final Bill-Contract scope
completed.
8.16.3: Part bills of categories (a) and (b) shall be
paid in accordance with the accepted break up of
payments after deducting the statutory
deductions as sale tax, works contract tax,
income tax or such other dues livable by the
Government at source as per the laws prevalent
from time to time during the tendency of the
contract and other deductions as per the contract
agreement.
8.16.4: There shall be no deductions due to
retention amounts on bills of category (d) and (e)
8.16.5: Bills of category (e) shall be treated as final
bill and shall be paid as per rules prevalent in the
Authority after effecting the deductions of taxes,
duties etc.
8.16.6: The contractor shall prepare and submit
the bills for payment with details of
measurements for the quantum of work done.
The measurements will be verified by competent
Engineer in charge of the work and transfer to
Measurement Book issued by authority for this
purpose and submitted to the Executive Engineer
in charge of the work. No work will be paid for
unless thoroughly good and fully in accordance
with the specifications. Should through
inadvertence bad works be passed and paid for, it
will nevertheless be perfectly competent, for the
Executive Engineer to strike the same out of the
account at any future time and recover the value
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:203:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
at any date previous to or at the time of granting
the final certificate. The Authority, however,
reserves the right to decide and allow/pass the
bill submitted by the contractor for payment
based on the overall priorities and the delay /
non – payments of part bill by the Authority
within 30 days of its submission by the
contractor shall not entitle him for any
compensation against the delayed payments nor
shall it be taken as a reason for not maintaining
the progress of the work.
8.16.7: Bills of value less than 10% of the total
amount of the contract shall not be presented
unless they are of categories c and e. There shall
be a minimum period of 30 days between two
consecutive bills raised by the contractor. The
maximum number of on account bills including
the 90% bill shall be 10 nos.
8.16.8: Break up for interim payment, vide Clause
8.16.1 shall form the basis of all “on account”
payment, but if in the opinion of the Authority the
break up furnished by the contractor is not in
keeping with the proportionate value of the work
at different stages, the authority may make their
own assessment of the proportionate value of the
work at the various stages and limit the interim
payment to such assessed value.
8.16.9: Bill may be submitted by the contractor as
soon as the stage of the work as per the break up
for interim payment is completed and Executive
Engineer shall take the requisite measures for
having the same evaluated and the admissible
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:204:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
claim as far shall be allowed as per Clause
8.16.5. Certified progress report of the Executive
Engineer shall be an accompaniment to the bill.
8.16.10: From the "on account" payment full
deduction shall be made for materials if any,
issued by the Authority and any other dues from
the contractor. The contractor shall furnish along
with such bills detailed measurements and
specifications of all items involving the use of
cement and M S rods or steel to enable the
departmental of facers to check and admit the
issue of the departmental materials.
8.16.11: "On account payments made to the
contractor shall be without prejudice to the final
making up of the accounts (Except where
measurements are specifically noted in the
measurement books as final measurement and as
such have been signed by the contractor) and
shall neither be considered nor used as evidence
of any fact stated in or to be inferred from such
accounts nor of any particular quantity of work
having been executed nor of the manner of its
execution being satisfactory.
8.16.12: From the "On account" payments,
deductions shall, be made by the Authority at the
rate of 1% of the amount of bill, excluding cost of
departmental material if any supplied, towards
contribution to the Kerala Construction Workers
Welfare Fund Board.
8.16.13: In case of any dispute arising out of the
supply of ISO marked pipes, the Kerala Water
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:205:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
Authority shall be indemnified by the contractor,
to the effect that all liabilities shall be borne by
the selected contractor and the Kerala Water
Authority’s responsibility shall end with the
payment for the measured quantities in
accordance with the agreement for the work.
8.16.14: Interest for delayed payments: The
tenderer/contractor must clearly understand that
the settlement of claim either by part bill will be
made only according to the availability of budget
provision and allotment of funds made with the
Divisional Officer in charge of the work under the
respective head of account in which the work is
sanctioned and arranged and also subject to the
seniority of such bills. No claim for interest or for
damages whatsoever shall be made for the
belated settlement of claims of bills. No such
claims shall be admitted by the Authority.
8.16.15 : As built drawings of the facilities installed
shall be a prerequisite for the payment of 90% bill
which will be paid on completion and testing of all
the work but for trial run.
8.16.16 : Checklist before making payment which
would ensure quality of pipes and quality of work
and workmanship should be adopted and its
tracking should be done.”
PRE-QUALIFICATION OF TENDERERS
7.1 The Superintending Engineer, Kerala Water
Authority,P.H.Circle, Muvattupuzha for, and on
behalf of the Kerala Water Authority propose to
arrange the following work under EPCM/ Lump
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:206:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
Sum contract basis, Name of Work: Jal Jeevan
Mission (JJM)-JJM - WSS TO NEDUMKANDAM,
PAMPADUMPARA, UPPUTHARA ELAPPARA
(PART) AND ARAKULAM (PART) PANCHAYATHS
IN IDUKKI DISTRICT -Supply and laying
distribution system and Providing FHTCs in
Nedumkandam Panchayath-Pipeline Work:
successful tenderer shall be entrusted with the
work of design, construction, supply, erection,
pipe laying, commissioning and maintaining of all
the Civil, Mechanical and Electrical components
required for the completion of the project as
described in the"Scope of Works"in Volume II.”
(emphasis supplied)
140. There can be no dispute that the contract in question
is an item-rate BoQ contract. The BoQ forms an integral part of
the agreement and each item has been separately described,
quantified and assigned an accepted contractual rate. The
appellants, therefore, contend that once an individual item in
the BoQ is supplied, measured and certified, the contractor
becomes entitled to the full contractual rate attributable to that
item, unless the contract contains a specific stipulation
postponing or restricting such payment. We are unable,
however, to accept that the rights and obligations of the parties
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:207:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
can be determined by reference to the BoQ alone. The contract
has to be read as a whole and effect has to be given to every
stipulation incorporated therein. The mere fact that the contract
is an item-rate BoQ contract does not, by itself, render
inapplicable the other contractual provisions regulating the
manner, stage and extent of payment.
141. It is in this context that the expression “secured
advance” occurring in Clause 8.8 requires consideration.
Clause 8.8 provides that there shall be no mobilisation
advance, but enables the contractor to raise a claim for 80% of
the value of tested materials supplied at site, at the estimated
rate or quoted rate, whichever is less, in accordance with the
approved break-up of payment, as a secured advance, subject
to consideration by the Authority in accordance with the
relevant provisions. Clause 9.14.1.6 contains a corresponding
stipulation that, on each supply, the contractor may submit
bills for the materials supplied, not exceeding 80% of the
estimated rate or the quoted rate, whichever is less. Moreover,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:208:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
as rightly pointed out by Mr.Kurup, learned Senior Counsel for
the KWA, whether BoQ item for supply can be treated
separately de hors Clause 9.14.1.6 limiting payment on supply
to 80%.
142. Before considering the rival contentions as to the
effect of Clauses 8.8 and 9.14.1.6, it is apposite to note the
meaning attributed to the expressions “Intermediate Payment”
and “Secured Advance” in the Kerala Public Works Account
Code. As noticed earlier, an “Intermediate Payment” is a
disbursement on a running account which is not the final
payment and expressly includes a “Secured Advance” and an
“On Account Payment”. A “Secured Advance” is, in turn, an
advance made on the security of materials brought to the site of
the works. The provisions relating to the Running Account Bill
(Secured Advance) further indicate that such payment is
distinct from the final payment in respect of the work. The
statutory/accounting framework thus recognises a secured
advance as an intermediate payment made against materials
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:209:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
brought to site, and not as the final discharge of the
contractual consideration payable for the completed work.
143. The provisions contained in paragraph 10.2.22 and
paragraph 10.2.33 of the Kerala Public Works Account Code
further illuminate the nature of such payment. Paragraph
10.2.22 contemplates the preparation and scrutiny of bills with
reference to the work or supplies actually made and provides
for allowance of the full contractual rate where the stipulated
requirements are satisfied. Note (4) thereto specifically
recognises that an advance in respect of supplies is distinct
from the regular payment and requires the agreement to make
clear that such payment is only in the nature of an advance.
Paragraph 10.2.33, while ordinarily prohibiting advances to
contractors, permits a secured advance in the specified
circumstances against materials brought to site and
contemplates recovery of such advances from bills for work
done as the materials are utilised. The provisions therefore
reinforce the distinction between an intermediate payment
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:210:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
against materials and the ultimate payment due upon
completion of the contractual work.
144. It is relevant to refer to paragraph 10.2.33 which
reinforces the distinction. While advances to contractors are, as
a rule, prohibited, an exception is made in respect of a
contractor whose contract is for finished work, enabling an
advance to be sanctioned on the security of materials brought
to site, subject to the conditions stipulated therein.
Significantly, the provision contemplates recovery of such
advances from the bills for work done as the materials are
used. The scheme of the Kerala Public Works Account Code,
therefore, recognises a distinction between an advance made
against materials brought to site and the payment ultimately
due in respect of the completed work in which such materials
are incorporated.
145. The aforesaid provisions lend support to the
submission of the appellants that a “secured advance” is, in its
ordinary sense, an intermediate payment made against the
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:211:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
security of materials brought to site and is distinct from final
payment. However, the character of the payment as a secured
advance does not, by itself, determine the extent of the amount
contractually payable at that stage. The Kerala Public Works
Account Code explains the nature of such payment; the extent
of payment permissible in the present contract has necessarily
to be determined from the express terms of the agreement. The
description of the payment as a “secured advance” cannot,
therefore, be construed to disregard the specific ceiling
prescribed by the contract itself.
146. The aforesaid provisions, however, do not by
themselves determine the extent of payment contractually
permissible in the present case.
147. The contractual scheme assumes further
significance when Clause 7.1 is considered. The work is
described therein as being entrusted on an EPCM/Lump Sum
contract basis and the scope is stated to comprise design,
construction, supply, erection, pipe laying, commissioning, and
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:212:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
maintenance of the civil, mechanical, and electrical components
necessary for completion of the project. The contractual
obligation is thus composite in nature. The fact that the pipes
supplied by the contractor are separately identified and valued
in the BoQ does not, by itself, sever the supply from the other
stages of the contractual work. The separate identification and
valuation of an item facilitates measurement and billing; it does
not override express provisions regulating the stage and extent
of payment in respect of that item.
148. This conclusion is reinforced by Clauses 9.14.1.1 to
9.14.1.5. Clause 9.14.1.1 requires the materials to be supplied
in a phased manner in accordance with the phased supply
schedule prepared by the agreement executing authority.
Clause 9.14.1.2 requires the schedule to be prepared having
regard to the targeted progress of pipe laying and the
permissions required from the concerned agencies for laying the
pipes. Clause 9.14.1.3 stipulates that each supply shall be
made only pursuant to a written instruction from the Executive
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:213:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
Engineer. Clause 9.14.1.4 requires the Executive Engineer to
direct the contractor to place the supply order in each phase
after evaluating the actual progress of laying of the pipes
supplied in the previous phase. Clause 9.14.1.5 further enables
modification of the phased supply schedule depending upon
variation in the targeted progress of the work.
149. The aforesaid provisions, in our view, are significant
in determining the true import of Clause 9.14.1.6. They
demonstrate that the contractual arrangement does not
contemplate the supply of pipes as an isolated and self-
contained event, divorced from the subsequent laying of the
pipes. The quantity and timing of each supply are themselves
linked to the progress of the work. The contractor is not at
liberty to supply the materials at any stage and claim payment
merely by reason of their delivery at site; the supply is
regulated by the phased schedule and by the written
instructions of the Executive Engineer, having regard to the
actual progress of the laying work.
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:214:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
150. It is against this contractual background that Clause
9.14.1.6 has to be understood. The clause specifically provides
that, “on each supply”, the contractor may submit bills for the
materials supplied, but such bills shall not exceed 80% of the
estimate rate or the quoted rate, whichever is less. The
expression “on each supply” assumes significance. Read with
Clauses 9.14.1.1 to 9.14.1.5, it identifies the stage of supply as
an intermediate stage at which the contractor is permitted to
raise a bill, while expressly prescribing the maximum amount
billable at that stage.
151. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention
that Clause 9.14.1.6 is merely an enabling provision which
does not impose any limitation upon the amount payable
against the supply. An enabling provision may confer a right to
raise a claim; but where the very provision conferring that right
specifies that the bill shall not exceed 80% of the estimate rate
or quoted rate, whichever is less, the ceiling so prescribed
cannot be disregarded. The use of the expression “secured
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:215:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
advance” in Clause 8.8 does not alter this conclusion. The two
clauses, 9.14.1.6 and 8.8 read together, indicate that the
contractor is enabled to receive an intermediate payment
against the materials supplied, but the contract consciously
limits the amount that can be claimed at that stage.
152. The contention of the appellants that, upon supply,
measurement and certification of the pipes, the payment ceases
to be a secured advance and becomes the regular contractual
consideration for the item, cannot also be accepted as an
absolute proposition. Whether the payment is to be treated as
an intermediate payment or as final consideration cannot be
determined merely by reference to the stage at which the
material is measured and certified. The character and extent of
the payment have to be determined from the contractual
provisions governing the transaction. In the present case, the
agreement itself prescribes the amount payable “on each
supply” and separately provides for subsequent stages of
payment.
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:216:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
153. The same conclusion is reinforced by Clauses 8.15
and 8.16. Clause 8.15.1 contemplates preparation of a payment
schedule or billing break-up after execution of the agreement,
which is to form the basis for billing. Clause 8.16.1
contemplates an interim payment break-up expressed as a
percentage of the total contract value, with separate break-ups
for the individual components and stages of the work. The
provision also provides for amounts attributable to trial
running, commissioning and maintenance. The contractual
mechanism, therefore, is one of progressive, and stage-wise
payment and not one under which every separately priced item
in the BoQ necessarily attracts full payment immediately upon
its supply.
154. Clause 8.16.2 is particularly instructive. It classifies
the bills into five different categories: work in progress; work
completed but commissioning pending; testing and
commissioning completed; the Part maintenance period; and
the part/final bill upon completion of the contractual scope.
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:217:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
Clause 8.16.3 provides for payment of the bills falling within
the relevant categories in accordance with the accepted break-
up of payments. Clause 8.16.5 further deals with the final bill
and payment thereof subject to the rules of the Authority and
the applicable deductions. The contractual scheme thus clearly
distinguishes payments arising at intermediate stages from the
final settlement upon completion of the contractual scope.
155. Clause 8.16.15 also assumes significance in this
regard. It contemplates payment of the 90% bill upon
completion and testing of the work, subject to the stipulated
condition relating to trial run, and makes the as-built drawings
a prerequisite for such payment. These provisions would be
difficult to reconcile with the proposition that the entire
contractual rate attributable to a particular supply item
becomes unconditionally payable immediately upon delivery
and certification of the material. The agreement itself
contemplates further stages of performance and corresponding
stages of payment.
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:218:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
156. The appellants have also contended that Clauses 8.8
and 9.14.1.6 do not expressly state the stage at which the
balance amount, after payment of 80%, becomes payable and
that such interpretation would result in indefinite
postponement of their contractual entitlement. We are unable
to accept the said contention. The agreement, read as a whole,
does not leave the subsequent payment without any
contractual framework. The classification of bills under Clause
8.16 and the provisions relating to the part/final bill provide for
progressive payment and final settlement upon completion of
the contractual scope. The absence of a provision in Clauses
8.8 or 9.14.1.6 specifying the precise stage of adjustment of the
balance cannot, therefore, be a ground for rendering nugatory
the express limitation governing the amount billable at the
stage of supply.
157. We are conscious of the submission that the BoQ
separately describes and values the supply of pipes and that
there is no express linkage therein between payment for the
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:219:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
pipes and execution of another individual item. That
circumstance, however, cannot be considered in isolation. The
BoQ, the provisions governing phased supply and the
provisions governing payment constitute parts of one
contractual arrangement. The interpretation canvassed by the
appellants, if accepted, would substantially efface the specific
stipulation in Clause 9.14.1.6 that the bill “on each supply”
shall not exceed 80% of the estimate rate or quoted rate,
whichever is less. Such an interpretation would fail to give
independent effect to a material term consciously incorporated
into the agreement.
158. The authorities cited before us on the principles
governing the interpretation of commercial contracts also
reinforce the requirement that the contractual document must
be construed to ascertain the intention expressed through the
language employed by the parties and that the several
provisions must, as far as possible, be read harmoniously. We
have accordingly considered the BoQ, the provisions relating to
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:220:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
secured advance, the phased supply mechanism and the
provisions governing interim and final payments as components
of the same contractual arrangement.
159. On such an interpretation, we find that the separate
rate assigned to the supply item in the BoQ determines the
contractual rate for valuation and billing; it does not, by itself,
confer an unconditional right upon the contractor to receive
100% of that rate immediately upon delivery and certification of
the pipes. The specific contractual provisions determine the
stage and extent of payment. Clause 9.14.1.6, read with
Clauses 9.14.1.1 to 9.14.1.5 and Clause 8.8, operates as an
express regulation of the payment permissible at the stage of
supply.
160. We have, therefore, independently considered the
rival submissions and contractual provisions relied upon by the
parties. On such consideration, we agree with the conclusion
reached by the learned Single Judge that the appellants, having
entered into the contract subject to the aforesaid stipulations,
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:221:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
cannot claim a declaration contrary to the agreed payment
mechanism. The contractual provisions cannot be rendered
otiose merely because the contract contains an item-wise BoQ
with separately quoted rates.
161. It may also be noticed that, during the pendency of
these writ appeals, this Court directed the respondents to
continue releasing 80% of the estimated rates without prejudice
to the rights and contentions of the parties. The said interim
arrangement was intended only to balance the equities pending
adjudication of the appeals and cannot be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy. Having
considered the contractual scheme in its entirety, we find no
reason to take a view different from that taken by the learned
Single Judge.
162. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no
infirmity in the interpretation placed by the learned Single
Judge on Clauses 8.8 and 9.14.1.6 of the NIT conditions. The
appellants have failed to establish an entitlement to claim 100%
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:222:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
of the quoted rate merely upon supply and certification of the
pipes. Consequently, the judgment under appeal does not
warrant interference.
163. In the result, the impugned judgment of the learned
th
Single Judge dated 8 June, 2026 does not warrant
interference. The writ appeals fail and are accordingly
dismissed. The interim order passed during the pendency of
these writ appeals shall stand vacated.
Sd/-
SOUMEN SEN,
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V. M.,
JUDGE
krj/SSK
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:223:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 1323 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
27.06.2024 IN W.P.(C) NO.19467 OF 2024
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED
19.03.2026 FILED IN W.P.(C) NO.19467 OF 2024
(M/S. CHICAGO CONSTRUCTIONS INTERNATIONAL
PRIVATE LIMITED V. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY &
OTHERS)
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED
25.07.2024 IN W.P (C) NO.19467 OF 2024
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED
10.01.2025 IN W.P (C) NO.19467 OF 2024
W.A. No.1323 of 2026 &
connected appeals -:224:-
CNR : KLHC010494832026
2026:KER:73174
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 1466 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Receipt Receipt dated 17.08.2026 evidencing payment
of cost