IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 194 of 2008 -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28855/2007 Dated 28/09/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- K.K.SUNIL KUMAR, UDHYANAM, CHANGANKULANGARA, OCHIRA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.) & SRI.K.HARILAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS (E) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD, BUILDINGS AND LOCAL WORKS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.K.BABU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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