JUDGMENT : SOUMEN SEN, C.J. 1. Heard Mr.E.C.Bineesh, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Road Fund Board (KRFB), Mr.Philip J.Vettickattu, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and Mr.S.Chandrasekharan Nair, learned Standing Counsel for KIIFB. 2. This writ appeal is at the instance of the Project Director, Project Management Unit, Kerala Road Fund Board. 3. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.10.2025 passed in W.P(C)No.15195 of 2024, whereby, the present appellant was directed to pay amounts, if any, found due to the writ petitioner on account of any preliminary/partial work completed by the writ petitioner in furtherance of his obligations under the contract. 4. The Project Director was directed to calculate and disburse the said amounts to the writ petitioner, without undue delay and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. This order is challenged by Project Director on the ground that in the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer in Ext.P12 in Paragraph No.14, the Chief Executive Officer has referred to the GCC clause of contract, Clause 24 and Clause and 33, to show that the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (“the KIIFB” for short) is not a dispute resolution Authority in the matter of dispute between the contractor and the appellant. Hence, any dispute arising out of the terms of the contract is to be resolved in accordance with the settled principles of the law of contract. 5. Previously, the Chief Executive Officer, was acting on the basis of the directions passed in the earlier writ petition, namely, W.P(C) No.4653 of 2024, dated 08.02.2024. The Chief Executive Officer, in his report dated 25.03.2024 made the following remarks after extensively hearing the parties : “i. The Petitioner Contractor was not having the sufficient length of hindrance free land for carrying out work as per the contract scope within the stipulated time of validly extended time. Hence he was unable to perform their obligations under the Contract agreement. ii)It was the responsibility of SPV to provide hindrance free land to the Contractor to Petitioner Contractor. Hence the reasons for non-performance of the work cannot execute the work. But SPV has failed to provide hindrance free land to the be solely attributed to the actions or inactions of the contractor. ii)It was the responsibility of SPV to provide hindrance free land to the Contractor to Petitioner Contractor. Hence the reasons for non-performance of the work cannot execute the work. But SPV has failed to provide hindrance free land to the be solely attributed to the actions or inactions of the contractor. iii)The Petitioner has informed the SPV that he is willing to perform his obligations the work. The last letter among the series submitted by the Contractor was on as per the Contract subject to the latter handing over hindrance free land to continue 21.12.2022. But SPV, though fully aware of the hindrances at the site, without sufficiently performing its obligations in handing over hindrance -free site. terminated the work at the risk and cost of the petitioner hastily within a week of his request. iv) In view of the above, the termination of the Contract at the risk and cost of the Contractor by the SPV cannot be considered as justifiable.” 6. In the earlier writ petition, the present appellant was a party and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions:- “ 7. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition to the limited extent of directing the first respondent to hear the petitioner, as also other competent Authorities, including the Kerala Road Fund Board again, either by himself or in the presence of any officer of his choice - who are experts in the field; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon in terms of Ext.P8 judgment within a further period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, while doing as afore, the first respondent will not be trammelled or influenced by Ext.P10 Hearing Report; and further that, until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner, all further coercive action against them shall stand deferred." 7. The aforesaid writ petition was filed on the premise that the Chief Executive Officer of the KIIFB, instead of considering the representation, delegated the hearing to be conducted by the Lead Project Examiner of the KIIFB and then to cause him to file a report, namely, Ext.P10, containing his recommendations. 8. The aforesaid writ petition was filed on the premise that the Chief Executive Officer of the KIIFB, instead of considering the representation, delegated the hearing to be conducted by the Lead Project Examiner of the KIIFB and then to cause him to file a report, namely, Ext.P10, containing his recommendations. 8. In the aforesaid judgment dated 08.02.2024, there is a direction issued to the Chief Executive Officer, KIIFB to pass appropriate order and take necessary action in terms of the judgment dated 25.07.2023 passed in W.P(C)No.42436 of 2022. 9. The said order was accepted by all and it was given effect to and as a result thereof, a fresh order was passed by the CEO. The recommendation of the CEO appears to be beyond the order of reference, as he was directed to act in terms of the previous judgment dated 25.07.2023 passed in W.P(C)No.42436 of 2022. 10. The observation in Paragraph No.14 of the said order of the Chief Executive Officer was unnecessary and uncalled for and needed orders for reference. The CEO was not exercising any advisory jurisdiction over the orders passed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has considered the said aspect in its true and proper perspective and passed the order directing the Chief Executive Officer to ascertain if any preliminary/partial work was completed by the writ petitioner in furtherance of the obligations of the contract and the Project Director was directed to take steps to calculate and disburse the amounts that may be found due and payable within a period of two months from the date of the said order. 11. In view of the fact that the appeal is pending and two months have expired in the meantime, we extend the period for compliance by two more months. The appeal stands disposed of.