JUDGMENT : Harisankar V. Menon, J. These writ petitions are filed by a contractor seeking to challenge the steps taken against him for the alleged delay in taking up and executing a work, as well as seeking a direction to disburse payments for certain works admittedly completed by him, not honoured on account of the liability created against him on account of the work not taken up by him as above. 2. The petitioner participated in a tender with respect to the work of “bitumen concrete overlaying” of Kodakara - Kodungallur road from KM 12/540 to 23/700 in Kodungallur LAC. He is stated to have been the successful bidder. An agreement was also executed for Rs.4,45,00,882.40, the petitioner having deposited an amount of Rs.13,35,100/- towards security. The site was handed over to him on 06.09.2021. The work ought to have been completed within nine months by 05.06.2022. As per Ext.P3 PWD Manual, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to have “set out the work” on the ground as per the approved plan. The setting out of the work is also to be “checked and approved” by the Departmental Officers. Similarly, the petitioner states that under clause 202.8(1)(xiv), it is the duty of the Assistant Executive Engineer to ensure before the start of the work, initial levels and details of material collection reports are furnished to the Chief Technical Examiner’s office. The petitioner contends that the setting out of the work under clause 2102.3 of the PWD Manual was completed through the intervention of the Lan Deck Surveyors as reported to the Assistant Engineer, Mala, by email dated 17.02.2022, produced as Ext.P41. The petitioner states that the afore layout measurements were prepared under the supervision of PWD Officials, Mala. He also relies on Ext.P42 invoice issued by the afore agency dated 17.02.2022 in support of the contention that the setting out of the work was completed by that date. He further points to Ext.P10 communication from the 2nd respondent dated 09.06.2022 to state that, even as on that date, the initial level proposal for the work had not been approved. The petitioner relies on Ext.P11 RTI information dated 07.02.2023 to state that the “level report” for the work was reported only on 08.04.2022. He further points to Ext.P10 communication from the 2nd respondent dated 09.06.2022 to state that, even as on that date, the initial level proposal for the work had not been approved. The petitioner relies on Ext.P11 RTI information dated 07.02.2023 to state that the “level report” for the work was reported only on 08.04.2022. The petitioner further relies on Ext.P14 communication from the 2 nd respondent to state that it is only on 23.06.2022 that the initial level proposal was approved by the said authority. However, since by that time, the period for the work was already over, the petitioner wanted himself to be relieved from the work and had therefore sent Ext.P5 letter dated 03.02.2022. In reply, the petitioner is served with Ext.P6 letter from the 2 nd respondent informing that it has been concluded in the meeting of the Department that there is an inordinate delay in the work and therefore, appropriate steps under the PWD Manual would be taken against him. The petitioner, therefore, sent Ext.P7 letter dated 29.03.2022 again repeating that he may be relieved of the work. In Ext.P8, dated 06.04.2022, as per which the date of reporting is shown as 06.04.2022, the proposed date of commencement is shown as 18.04.2022, and the anticipated date of completion is shown as 30.04.2022. In the meantime, by Ext.P17 order dated 21.06.2022, the 2 nd respondent found that the petitioner was at fault and therefore decided to remove the petitioner from the work and entrust the same to other contractors. In the meantime, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.13370 of 2022, which was disposed of by Ext.P18 judgment, noticing that there was failure on both sides which could not be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and directing the petitioner to file a representation before the 1 st respondent therein and directing the said respondent to decide the same within a time frame. On the basis of the said direction, the representation filed by the petitioner was disposed of by Ext.P19 by the Government dated 25.07.2023, deciding to recover an amount of Rs.2,87,83,926/- from the petitioner, subject to the condition that the amount fixed as risk and costs should be as per the relevant clauses of the PWD Manual. On the basis of the said direction, the representation filed by the petitioner was disposed of by Ext.P19 by the Government dated 25.07.2023, deciding to recover an amount of Rs.2,87,83,926/- from the petitioner, subject to the condition that the amount fixed as risk and costs should be as per the relevant clauses of the PWD Manual. It is seeking to challenge Exts.P17 and 19 issued as above that the petitioner is before this Court through the captioned writ petition. 3. The petitioner has filed W.P(C) No.8455 of 2023 stating that he had carried out another work – Thumboor - Thommana – Puthanchira road work - and some amount due to the petitioner as against the afore work is being withheld, without any justification, and seeking appropriate directions in the matter. 4. I have heard Sri.Ranjith Thamban, the learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri.V.M.Krishnakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Manoj Kumar, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents herein. 5. The short issue arising for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether the petitioner is to be held responsible for the delay noticed as above, or the delay should be attributed to the respondents herein. 6. The fact that the petitioner was entrusted with the site on 06.09.2021 is not in dispute. With reference to that date, the work ought to have been finalised within nine months by 05.06.2022. As already noticed, the PWD Manual (Ext.P3 in W.P(C) No.27735 of 2023) provides for setting out of works under clause 2102.3. The afore clause to the extent relevant herein reads as under: “ 2102.3 Setting out of works Before starting any work, the work shall be set out on the ground as per approved plans. The responsibility for setting out a work is that of the contractor as per terms of contract. It is however necessary that the setting out is checked and approved by the departmental Officers. This shall be done by the Assistant Engineer for works within his T.S.Powers and the Assistant Executive Engineer in other cases. If in the course of checking, the Assistant Engineer or the Assistant Executive Engineer feels that the advice of any higher authority is necessary he shall refer the matter to such higher authority and abide by his instructions………” Thus, the setting out of works requires to be checked and approved by the Departmental Officials. If in the course of checking, the Assistant Engineer or the Assistant Executive Engineer feels that the advice of any higher authority is necessary he shall refer the matter to such higher authority and abide by his instructions………” Thus, the setting out of works requires to be checked and approved by the Departmental Officials. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that unless and until the afore level proposal is approved by the authority, the petitioner could not have commenced the work. This is clear from the RTI reply provided by the 2 nd respondent, as evidenced by Exts.P35, P39, and P45. It is with reference to the afore that the dispute between the parties noticed as above, regarding the alleged delay in approving the setting out of works requires to be addressed. 7. Even according to the petitioner, the set out of work is done and intimated to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Mala, pursuant to Ext.P41 email dated 17.02.2022. Therefore, with reference to the handing over of the site on 06.09.2021, there is a delay of almost five months and 11 days in providing the information as regards the setting out of the work. However, as already found, the completion of the work ought to have atleast been effected by 05.06.2022. In other words, more than 4½ months was still available with the petitioner for completion of the work. 8. The email at Ext.P41 addressed to the Assistant Executive Engineer is seen as processed, not then and there, according to the petitioner. The details were forwarded to the Chief Technical Examiner only on 06.04.2022. The afore was received in the office of the 2 nd respondent on 10.06.2022, and the same is approved on 20.06.2022. In other words, the delay from 17.02.2022 till the approval on 20.06.2022 is attributable to the 2 nd respondent herein, is the submission made. At first blush, the afore contention raised by the petitioner appears to be attractive. 9. However, in the additional counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent dated 26.02.2024, it has been categorically stated as under:- “13. The petitioner’s contention that the entire level was reported before 5 th respondent on 17.02.2022 is untrue. The exhibit P41 email does not contain full documents. 9. However, in the additional counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent dated 26.02.2024, it has been categorically stated as under:- “13. The petitioner’s contention that the entire level was reported before 5 th respondent on 17.02.2022 is untrue. The exhibit P41 email does not contain full documents. For the submission of level report, the 5 th respondent office has to prepare the cross-section drawings at 10m interval for 10.88 Kms, area calculations and volume calculations for the entire stretch. The petitioner did not visit the site at all, and as evident by Exhibit P20, he was not in a position to execute the work due to non-operation of his bitumen plant. 14. The initial level reporting documents includes initial levels, check levels cross-section drawings at 10m intervals, the area calculation, and volume calculations for the entire scope of road. After the commencement of work, no proper progress on site activities was noticed. The 5 th respondent office has taken steps to start the work after the handing over of the site. The initial level taking agency has forwarded the initial levels only on 17/02/2022 and the balance part was completed and submitted by the 5 th respondent on 01/04/2022 only. During the check of levels at higher office, the corrections were noted and that was corrected from 5 th respondent office and resubmitted for approval. During this time no assistance or checking was done from the side of petitioner. It may be noted that the 5 th respondent has contacted LAN DEC survey agency through phone for the discussion and assistance for proper completion of the level report. But it was confirmed that, they were not paid for the works they have done to the petitioner. All the balance works and re-works was done from 5 th respondent office itself.” The afore averment made by the 3 rd respondent has not been denied or controverted by the petitioner. Ext.P41 email also does not show that the required attachments were included. The 3 rd respondent has also stated that the survey agency, which issued Ext.P41 email, had also been contacted; however, according to them, the payment for the work has not been made by the petitioner. 10. Ext.P41 email also does not show that the required attachments were included. The 3 rd respondent has also stated that the survey agency, which issued Ext.P41 email, had also been contacted; however, according to them, the payment for the work has not been made by the petitioner. 10. In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not justified in contending that atleast with reference to Ext.P41 email, it is to be concluded that whatever is required from the side of the petitioner has been done by him. 11. Though the learned senior counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that in certain cases, works were cancelled without endorsing “risk and costs,” and the same treatment requires to be extended to the petitioner also, in my opinion, as a matter of right, the petitioner cannot seek the afore benefit. On what basis the afore benefits were extended to the contractors mentioned in Ext.P44 is also not available from the afore document. If the petitioner has a case that the benefits pursuant to Ext.P44 also require to be extended to him, it is for him to point out the same to the respondents by preferring appropriate application. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek afore benefits, the challenge against Exts.P17 and 19 made by filing W.P(C) No.27735 of 2023 is rejected and the said writ petition would stand dismissed. As regards W.P(C) No.8455 of 2023, the petitioner contends that payment due to him for the work admittedly completed by him is not being released on account of the non- finalisation of the proceedings taken against him as regards the work which is the subject matter of W.P(C) No.27735 of 2023. Insofar as it is already found that the steps so taken requires to be upheld, while dismissing W.P(C) No.27735 of 2023, I find no merit in this writ petition also, and therefore, the same would also stand dismissed.