IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4199 of 2010(Y)
1. P.M.UMMER, AGED 44 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR, INLAND WATER NAVIGATION
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.ESM.KABEER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :09/02/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 4199 of 2010-Y
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a contractor who has executed an agreement with the
third respondent for the work by name TFC-Development of water ways
and canals-Main canal improvement to PC canal from Andathodu to
Ponnani ch.310 KM to 321.556 KM-reach I from Ch.317.184 to 317.784
KM. The site was handed over to the petitioner on 2.11.2007 and the work
had to be completed on or before 1.8.2008. It is submitted that there arose
some delay due to the delay in demarcation of the boundary in starting the
work. A part of the work has been completed by the petitioner. According
to the petitioner, the demarcation of the site was completed only by
30.8.2008 and going by the agreement he had to complete the work on or
before 1.8.2008. The petitioner therefore filed Ext.P1 representation in the
matter. Even after starting the work, subsequent problems arose in the
matter and ultimately an extension of time was granted upto 28.2.2010.
Ext.P2 is the copy of the supplemental agreement. According to the
petitioner, even now the obstruction caused by various third parties in the
work site has not been cleared. The petitioner did the work to the extent
wpc4199 /2010 2
possible including casting of pipes and slabs, etc.
2. The petitioner points out that due to hike in the labour charges, he
is entitled for revision of the estimate prepared. He is relying upon Ext.P3
circular issued by the Government in the matter. It is therefore contended
that a revision of enhancement of schedule rate is liable to be granted to the
petitioner. In identical cases contracts have been terminated without risk
and cost also.
3. Seeking for appropriate action in the matter, the petitioner has
filed Ext.P6 representation before the Government. It is pointed out that in
Exts.P4 and P5 in respect of certain other works, the Government has
decided to terminate the contract without the risk and cost of the contractor.
4. It is up to the Government to take a decision in the matter and
therefore there will be a direction the first respondent to take a decision on
Ext.P6 after considering the plea of the petitioner to make applicable Ext.P3
circular in his case also. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The
petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the
wpc4199 /2010 3
writ petition before the first respondent for compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/