IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 11774 of 2001(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K. PRAMOD KUMAR, S/O. KUNJURAMAN, AGED 33 YEARS, `ASHIRWAD', KARIMBAM AMSOM, THALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PROJECT AND CIVIL WORKS, K.S.R.T.C., TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, K.S.R.T.C., TRIVANDRUM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL.P, ADV. SRI. JOSE MATHEIKAL, SC, KSRTC. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 18774/2001 IN O.P. NO. 11774/2001 DISMISSED 02/01/2008. SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO. C-17/98-99 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE R.3. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.R.T.C, KOZHIKODE HANDING OVER THE SITE TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 14/02/2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P. 28453/2000 DTD. 10/10/2000. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. AB3/5718/97 DTD. 01/03/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.No.11774 OF 2001-B. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T The prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P5 whereby the representation of the petitioner to enhance the rates for the contract concerning construction of office-cum-shopping complex at the K.S.R.T.C. bus stand was rejected by the respondent Corporation. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent entered into an agreement dated 16-7-1998 for the work of construction of office-cum-shopping complex at Kannur bus stand of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. The work was awarded to the petitioner above 29.55% of the estimated amount. Ext.P1 is the agreement. The period of completion of work was one year from the date of handing over of the site. It is averred in the writ petition that even though the petitioner started the work, he stopped the work on account of an order of injunction in IA.No.4996/1998 in OS.No.930/1998 of the Munsiff Court, Kannur. Because of certain other circumstances also he could O.P.No.6607 OF 2002-J. 2 not start the work for a period of one year, by the result of which the period of completion of work was extended by the respondent for another one year from 20-10-1999. 2. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, sought for enhancement of the schedule of works specified in the contract, for which he filed a representation before the Minister for Transport on 14-2-2000. As per Ext.P4 judgment this Court directed the 4th respondent therein to consider and pass orders on the representation. It is accordingly Ext.P5 has been passed by the 3rd respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the order of injunction and other circumstances the work could not be done in spite of handing over the site, which were circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner and the request for enhancement of the rates is reasonable. 4. The Corporation has filed a counter-affidavit. It is averred in the counter-affidavit that the work could not be progressed as programmed consequent on the stay order from the court and for other reasons. But as requested by the petitioner the time for completion of work was extended upto 10-10-2000. The extension is granted on an O.P.No.6607 OF 2002-J. 3 acceptance of the petitioner to execute the work at his agreed rate and complete it before the extended time of completion namely, 19-10-2000. It is also stated that an amount of Rs.63,44,684.69 amounting to about 44% of the work amount has been paid to the petitioner but he stopped the work unilaterally. 5. The respondents disputed the claim for enhancement of rate on the ground that there is no provision in the agreement to change the rate once agreed upon depending on the change in the cost of materials or revision of PWD schedule rates. The fact that he has sought for extension of time without any conditions is relied upon to contend that the claim is not sustainable. 6. The dispute in this case is purely in relation to a contract entered into between the parties. Therefore the remedy available is really private law remedy and this writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. As pointed out in the counter-affidavit the petitioner had agreed to complete the work during the extended period and at that time there was no other condition entitling him to demand revision of rates. Hence it cannot be said that the respondents were in fault in not considering the request of the petitioner. Be that as it may, it is open to O.P.No.6607 OF 2002-J. 4 the petitioner to resort to other remedies if he is aggrieved in the matter. With the above observation this writ petition is dismissed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/