IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 194 of 2008()
1. K.K.SUNIL KUMAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. CHIEF ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :29/01/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A.No.194 of 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 29th day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
Petitioner is a contractor and he has undertaken and executed the
construction of compound wall, gate, culvert and drain for New High Court
Complex at Ernakulam. He had claimed revision of rates by 75% due to delay
in handing over the work site.
2. The matter was considered by the Arbitration Committee and the
Government has granted 35% enhancement.
3. Petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 to the State Government to review
the decision and claimed a revision of 75%. However, the second respondent
has recommended an enhanced rate of 45% for the works executed by the
petitioner/contractor. The request so made by the petitioner was rejected by
the first respondent on the ground that the matter has already been examined
and has allowed 35% enhancement and therefore, there is no ground to
review the decision of the Arbitration Committee.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner was before this Court in W.P.
(C) No.28855 of 2007.
5. The learned Single judge, being of the opinion that the dispute is in
the nature of a civil dispute between the parties, and further the matter is
contractual in nature, has directed the petitioner to file a civil suit, if he so
desires, for enhancement of the rates.
6. These are contractual matters and on a request made by the
appellant, the State Government has enhanced the rates by 35%. If the
W.A.No.194 of 2009
2
appellant is of the opinion that he is entitled for 75% of the enhanced rate, he
has to approach either the Arbitrator if it is provided in the agreement, or to
approach the civil court. Keeping this aspect of the matter in view, in our
opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition, but has
reserved liberty to the appellant to approach the civil court. We do not see
any infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. Therefore the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE
vns