IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 23222 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- V.CHANDRAN, 52 YEARS S/O/LATE VASUDEVAN SRICHITRA ENTERPRISES PANGODE PO., NEDUMANGAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN JOSEPH SRI.P.I.DAVIS RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS(PROTECTION) O/O.THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS VAZHUTHAKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIVISION FOREST OFFICER, ACHANKOVIL, KOLLAM 4. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS SOUTHERN CIRCLE, KOLLAM CHINNAKADA PO. BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER(FIREST), SRIP.M. PAULOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 23222/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 09.07.07. EXT.P2 : TRUE OCPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 25.07.07. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 31.12.07. EXT.P4 : TRUE OCPY OF THE LETTER DATED21.01.08 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.04.08 IN WPC:12951/08. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.5.08 EXT.P7 : TRUE COY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.06.08 IN IA 6166/08 IN WPC:12951/08. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.06.08 EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.07.08. EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.05.08. EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.06.08. EXT.P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.06.08. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE 7 S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 23222 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner had entered into a contract with the respondents for cutting and removing trees in the 1965 MW Plantation North Series(15-929 hectares) of Achencovil Range. Petitioner complied with all legal formalities for entering into the contract by paying the full amount due. Period of contract was two months. Since the petitioner submitted before the respondents that he could not complete the work within the stipulated period of two months due to reasons beyond his control, he was granted extension of time. Originally, petitioner was granted one month’s extension of time. Later on his application, he was given extension by a further period of two months. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for further extension of time. Since it was not granted, petitioner approached this Court and this Court by Ext.P5 judgment directed consideration of the petitioner’s request in the light of the recommendations made by officers of the Department, namely Exts.P3 and P4. The Chief Conservator of Forests, who was directed to pass orders, by Ext.P6, WPC : 23222/08 -:2:- while recommending the same, held that it is for the Government to decide the matter and therefore the petitioner was directed to approach the Government for extension of time. Petitioner accordingly approached the Government and by Ext.P8 order, Government rejected the claim of the petitioner. Although petitioner filed a review petition, the same was also rejected by Ext.P9. Petitioner challenges Exts.P8 & P9. Petitioner’s contention is that all the lower officers had specifically recommended the petitioner’s claim for extension of time. In the impugned orders, there is no reason mentioned as to why the said recommendation should not be accepted. It is the further contention of the petitioner that as per Exts.P10 to P12 the Government had granted extension of time for similarly placed contractors and therefore the petitioner has been singled out for hostile discrimination in the matter. It would amount to violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner is the contention of the petitioner. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. According to them, the petitioner had been given more than enough time to complete the work and he has not made out a WPC : 23222/08 -:3:- case for further extension of time. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. This is purely a contractual matter. Petitioner has entered into contract with open eyes regarding the terms and conditions. The original period fixed was only two months. Petitioner was actually given three months’ extension further, that is, more than the original contract period. The fact that the lower officers recommended the matter is not a reason why the Government should not consider the claim of the petitioner independently. Government based on the terms of the contract has denied further extension of time. It cannot be said that it is arbitrary or unreasonable insofar as the petitioner cannot be given extension of time by more than three months in respect of a contract which had to be completed by two months. I am not satisfied that the petitioner can make out a case of discrimination on the basis of Exts.P10 to P12. Exts.P10 to P12 only shows that certain contractors have been given 15 days extension of time for completing contract. It does not even show that it was after granting earlier 1 or 2 months extension of time. In this case the petitioner had been given extension of time twice, that too for more than the original WPC : 23222/08 -:4:- contract period. Therefore, I do not think that there is anything wrong in Exts.P8 and P9 orders and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb