IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 15977 of 2008(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.AKBER ALI, S/O. P.MUHAMMED, AGED 41 YEARS, DAYA MANZIL, EDAVANNA P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR..SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MAMPAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECOR, MALAPPURAM CHAIRMAN, HE RIVER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MALAPPURAM. 3. THE BLOCK LEVEL TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,OFFICE OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. ADDL.R5: THE DISTRICT EXPERT COMMITTEE UNDER THE KERALA PROTECTION OF REIVER BANKS AND REGULATION OF REMOVAL OF SAND ACT, 2001, MALAPPURAM, RERPESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM. (ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD 2.6.2008 IN IA 6712/2008) GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. K.R. DEEPA FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 16028 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15977 of 2008 APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.32789/206 05.01.2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE TABULATION SHEET OF THE WORKS CONTAINED. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD 30.4.2008SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 01.10.2007 ISSUED BY R1 BEFORE R2. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 26.9.2007 ISSUED BY R2. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 17.12.07 IN W.P.(C) NO.29762/2007 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P7; COPY OF ORDER DTD 10.3.2008 PASSED BY R2. EXT.P8: COPY OF SCHEDULE OF RATES PUBLISHED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UNDER THE STATE OF KERALA IN THE YEAR 2004. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF RATES PUBLISHED BY THE STATE OF KERALA IN THE YEAR 2007, ENHANCING THE RATES OF CONSTRUCTION. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF RATES PUBLISHED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IN THE YEAR 2008. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 15.5.2008 ISSUED BY R1 TO R2. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.5.2008 ISSUED BY R2 TO R1. EXT.P13: COPY OF LETTER DATED 22.5.2008 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)Nos.15977 & 16028 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners in these two writ petitions are contractors who have undertaken certain works on behalf of the 1st respondent – Panchayat. They have completed the work and they have been paid amounts also. Now they have come with a contention that the estimate prepared at the time of inviting tenders was not in accordance with the schedule of rates prepared by the Public Works Department and therefore, the amounts due to them should also be revised accordingly. 2. I have heard the parties. Admittedly, tenders were invited for the works and the petitioners had submitted their tenders quoting their rate which only have been accepted, pursuant to which the petitioners have completed the work. They had quoted the amounts, which were most profitable to them. The fact that in the estimate prepared by the 1st respondent there were some mistakes in applying rates does not in any way affect W.P.(c)No.15977/08 & Con.case 2 the contract between the Panchayat and the petitioners to execute the work for the amounts quoted by the petitioners. After having submitted tenders which were accepted the petitioner cannot turn around and claim that they are entitled to more amounts because the estimates prepared by the 1st respondent were not in accordance with PWD rates which have been adopted by the Panchayat. As such I do not find any merit in the writ petitions and accordingly, the same are dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.15977/08 & Con.case 3