1. The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P13, P15 and P18A orders.

2. Petitioner is an organisation primarily undertaking social impact assessment study. On 03.02.2022, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P1 notice inviting tenders from eligible agencies to be empanelled for conducting SIA studies in Lakshadweep in accordance with The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, ‘the Act, 2013’). While so, respondents issued Ext.P3 SIA notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 2013. As per Ext.P3 notification, SIA study was to be conducted for the ‘acquisition of land’ for the development of high-end eco-tourism project and other allied infrastructures at South Pandaram, Minicoy Island. Pursuant to Ext.P1 notice inviting tender petitioner submitted its e-tender, and the respondents selected the petitioner and other three agencies for the said purpose. Thereafter, by Ext.P5 the 3rd respondent issued notice requesting the petitioner and other selected agencies to submit confirmation of their willingness in writing to carry out the SIA studies as per the approved rates. Petitioner including other selected agencies submitted confirmation of their willingness to carry out the SIA. Studies. Thereafter Ext.P6 agreement was executed between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. Ext.P6 agreement is for a period of three years.

3. After execution of Ext.P6, the 3rd respondent issued a letter of intent in favour of the petitioner awarding the work of conducting SIA study, for land acquisition, for the development of high-end-eco tourism project, South Pandaram in Minicoy as per Ext.P7. As per Ext.P7, the work involved an area of 22.077 hectares and the total cost of work was calculated as Rs.1,07,40,234.50/-. Ext.P7 also included a time frame for carrying out the SIA study and submitting the reports, which set out 20 days for conducting the SIA study and submission of the draft SIA report, and 21 days for conducting the public hearing, and four days for submission of the final report. Thereafter, Ext.P8 work order was also issued. Immediately after executing Ext.P8 agreement, petitioner started preparation for executing the work and made arrangements to reach Minicoy at the earliest with the required workforce. However, owing to unavailability of ships sailing from the mainland, and interrupted boat service from Kavaratti, the petitioner and their men could reach Minicoy only on 03.04.2022.

4. Meanwhile, the Ramadan month began on 02.04.2022, making it difficult to conduct the study on the island. Nevertheless, petitioner started the work on 07.04.2022, after meeting the Deputy Collector, Minicoy Island, and other authorities concerned. On 09.04.2022, the SIA team formed by the petitioner started visiting local households for collecting their responses, which covers the most important part of the study. However, the team found the sample population totally uncooperative and unwilling to participate in the study. On 10.04.2022, the SIA team met the head of the village as required by him, and he informed the team that locals are unwilling to participate in the study as they were against surrendering their land for any purpose whatsoever. It was further informed that, since the holy month of Ramadan was in progress, the local population should not be approached during the day time for the collection of their responses, and that any kind of data collection should be carried out only after 11 pm. Based on the same, the SIA team formed by the petitioner carried out the study, adopted a new work schedule, working between 11 pm and 2 am. However, the new schedule of work with which the team members are totally unaccustomed, made their task extremely difficult. The team could collect only very few responses every day and the study could be completed only by 29.04.2022.

5. In the meanwhile, the GIS and remote sensing study of the project affected area was also conducted by the team.

Thereafter, the data collected was compiled and analysed using specially designed software. It is also submitted that the slow internet speed and poor connectivity in the island seriously hampered the data uploading and analysis right from the beginning. Finally, after overcoming all these obstacles, an exhaustive first draft of SIA report was prepared by the petitioner on 02.05.2022, which runs to 359 pages. After preparing the draft report, petitioner wrote to the Deputy Collector cum CEO, Minicoy Island and the Chairperson, Village Dweep Panchayat, Minicoy expressing its gratitude for the co-operation and assistance extended by them for planning and executing the SIA fieldwork. On the very same day, the petitioner also intimated the respondents through Ext.P11 e-mail that it had completed the first draft of SIA study and requested emergency transportation for the SIA team from Minicoy Island to Kavaratti, so that they could physically submit the report on 05.05.2022. Ext.P11 e-mail was sent by the petitioner on 02.05.2022. However, to the utter shock of the petitioner, 3rd respondent sent Ext.P12 letter dated 02.05.2022 cancelling Ext.P8 work order. Ext.P13 letter issued on behalf of the 3rd respondent was also attached to Ext.P12 and it is stated in Ext.P13 that the letter was issued with the approval of respondents 1 and 2.

6. Petitioner submits that Ext.P13 cancellation letter was issued in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice without issuing a show cause notice and without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Further it is submitted that Ext.P13 order is a cryptic order which does not state any reason for cancellation. Following the receipt of Ext.P13 cancellation letter, petitioner submitted Ext.P14 representation to revoke the cancellation of Ext.P8 work order and permit them to submit the final report after conducting public hearing. Later, petitioner was issued with Ext.P15 communication dated 05.05.2022, wherein it is stated that Ext.P1 notice inviting tender and Ext.P7 letter of intent issued to the petitioner were both cancelled. It is pertinent to note that on 05.05.2022, Ext.P15 was issued to the petitioner, and Ext.P16 notice inviting fresh tenders was also issued on the same day and the petitioner has submitted a tender pursuant to Ext.P16. Thereafter, Ext.P14 representation was disposed of as per Ext.P18A communication rejecting the request made therein. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.

7. A detailed statement has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, wherein it is contended that Ext.P7 letter of intent clearly stipulates a time frame for carrying out the Social Impact Assessment study and submission of the report, wherein only 20 days time was granted for conducting socio-economic survey and GIS mapping and for submission of draft SIA report with social impact management plan to the SIA & CS. However, the petitioner intimated the completion of first draft of SIA report only on 02.05.2022. Therefore, the communication of completion of first draft of SIA report was received after 37 days of issuance of work order and thereby constituting a clear violation of time frame fixed under Exts.P7 and P8. It is submitted that even after the lapse of 37 days, the first draft of the report was never submitted to the authorities. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 30.06.2022, Ext.P14 representation was considered and rejected as per Ext.R1(a) (produced as Ext.P18A by the petitioner). It is further stated that Clause 5 of Ext.P6 provides for arbitration, and in the light of the said clause, the writ petition is not maintainable.

8. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.

9. It is true that as per Ext.P7 strict time limit has been prescribed for undertaking various activities, and for conducting the socio-economic survey and GAS mapping, and submission of draft SIA report and the social impact management plan and the SIA & CS was to be done within a period of 20 days. But as per the counter affidavit filed, intimation regarding the completion of the same was submitted only on the 37th day. It is taking note of above said violation and default in maintaining the time limit that the work order has been cancelled as per Ext.P13. In Ext.P13, there is absolutely no reason stated for cancellation of the same rather than intimating the petitioner that the work order has been cancelled. To which Ext.P14 detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner pointing out the difficulties faced by them in completing the social impact assessment study entrusted to them which includes the difficulties in the transportation facilities and also regarding the conduct of the survey due to the Ramadan period including the difficulty in getting details and the lack of co-operation of the people of the locality during the Ramadan period. Thereafter by Ext.P15, the tender itself was cancelled that too without assigning any reason and thereafter on the very same day by Ext.P16, a fresh tender was called for. Taking note of the fact that Ext.P13 has been issued without assigning any reason and without notice to the petitioner, this Court as per order dated 30.06.2026 directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P14 representation after hearing the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and further directed that the tender relating the work shall not be finalised in the meanwhile.

10. Ext.P18A order is the decision taken pursuant to the said interim order passed by this Court on 30th June 2026, wherein the authorities have reiterated the stand that said time limit fixed for completing the work which was violated in the present case and therefore the cancellation order will stand valid and binding. An important aspect to be noted is that even going by the counter affidavit, in place of 20 days for conducting the socio-economic survey and GIS mapping and submission of draft SIA report with social impact management plan to SIA & CS, an intimation was given to the authorities that the said work has been completed within a period of 37 days. Petitioner’s specific case is that they could not complete the work within a period of 20 days for various reasons including non-availability of ship sailing from the mainland and uninterrupted boat services from Kavaratti. The petitioner could reach the Minicoy only on 03.04.2022. Meanwhile, the Ramadan month began on 02.04.2022, making it difficult to conduct a study on the island. The Chief of the Village has informed the team that the locals are unwilling to participate in the study as they were against surrendering their land for any purpose whatsoever. Further it was also informed that since holy month of Ramadan was in progress, local population should not be approached during the day time for collection of their responses, and collection of data should be conducted only after 11 pm. Therefore, the SIA team adopted a new work schedule to get the collection of data from the inhabitants in between 11 pm and 2 am. Due to the peculiar timing, only very few responses could be obtained every day and the study could be completed only on 29.04.2022. Though the petitioner contended that these are the circumstances in which there was a delay in completing the study, without even hearing the petitioner or without assigning any reason, by Ext.P13 the work order was cancelled. A perusal of Ext.P13 would reveal that no reasons have been stated for cancelling the work order nor the petitioner was heard while issuing Ext.P13. Thereupon Ext.P14 representation was filed pointing out the difficulties they have faced during the SIA study and the reasons for the delay which was directed to be considered by this Court as per the interim order dated 30.06.2026. Consequently, Ext.P18A decision was taken to stick on to the earlier order of cancellation. But a perusal of Ext.P18A would reveal that none of the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P14 was considered and Ext.P18A only reiterates that the petitioner could not complete the study within the time stipulated in the work order. There was no independent consideration of the reasons stated by the petitioner for not being able to complete the SIA study within a period of 20 days as stipulated in the work order. Going by the averment in the writ petition and in Ext.P14 almost 90% of the work is completed, and what remains now is only a public hearing and submission of the final SIA report.

11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, especially the fact that petitioner has completed 90% of the work already entrusted to them and has given reasons for not completing the work within time and that they have intimated the authorities that first limp of the work which is to be completed within a period of 20 days has been completed within a period of 37 days, and an explanation has been offered by the petitioner for the delay in completing the work, I am of the view that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner as per Ext.P18A is liable to be interfered with. Further it is in the interest of the respondents also to reconsider the matter and examine whether the reasons stated by the petitioner in not completing the SIA study within the time stipulated in the work order was due to any valid reason as stated by the petitioner since 90% of the work is stated to be completed. Having not done so, I am of the view that Ext.P18A order is liable to be interfered, with a consequential direction to the respondents to rehear the petitioner and consider the reasons stated by the petitioner for the delay in completing the work within the stipulated period as per the work order, and an independent and dispassionate consideration of the same is required from the part of the respondents in view of the genuine issues raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, Ext.P18A is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider Ext.P14 request submitted by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to them and pass a reasoned order touching upon the reasons stated by the petitioner for the delay that has happened in conducting the SIA study within the time stipulated in the work order. The respondents shall also take into consideration the stand of the petitioner that 90% of the work entrusted to them has been completed and if so, it is not in the best interest of the respondents also to allow the petitioner to complete the work inasmuch as the tendering and entrustment of the work to another agency at this point of time will only delay the project undertaken by the respondents. A decision in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till a decision is taken as directed above, the interim order granted not to finalise the tender in relation to work number 17 in Ext.P20 shall remain in force.

With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of.