IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2226 of 2009(M) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.ASOKAN , S/O.KANNAN, AGED 41 YEARS CONTRACTOR, VAKOM, P.O.VENGAD, KANNUR 670 612. BY MR.K.V.PAVITHRAN MR.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY, THALASSERI MUNICIPALITY P.O.THALASSERY. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.2226 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Contractor, who submitted tenders for some work for which quotations were invited by the 1st respondent. The petitioner's tender was accepted and he completed the work accordingly. The amounts due to him paid also. Now he has come forward with a contention that the estimate was prepared by the 1st respondent based on a mistaken rate and therefore, the petitioner should be paid for the work in accordance with the correct rate. I am not inclined to countenance the contentions of the petitioner. Whether there was a mistake in the estimate or not, it was not obligatory on the part of the petitioner to submit his tender in accordance with the rate shown in the estimate. It was perfectly open to the petitioner to quote the rate which was profitable to him. In fact he must have quoted the rate, which was profitable to him,which was accepted. After having submitted the tender and having accepted the same by the 1st respondent, W.P.(c) No.2226/09 2 the petitioner cannot now turn around and say that he is entitled to payment for the work done not in accordance with the rate quoted by him, but at a higher rate. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c) No.2226/09 3