IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 24263 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.K.SUNNY, S/O. C.P.KURIAKOSE, AGED 41 YEARS, CHENGAMANADU HOUSE, VEMOM POST, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANADU DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS (E) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD, BUILDINGS AND LOCAL WORKS,THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, (BUILDINGS) PWD NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDING DIVISION, KALPATTA, WAYANADU. 5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BUILDING, SUB DIVISION, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANADU. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.24263 OF 2010(G) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a PWD Contractor in Wayanad District, who had undertaken the work of construction of Sub Registrar Office at Vellamunda Village in Mananthavady. According to the petitioner for reasons which are to be attributable on the respondents, the work was delayed resulting in cost escalation. Thereupon, he claimed the benefit of revision of rates which was rejected by Ext.P15. According to the petitioner, in a similar situation, the benefit of revision of rates was granted to another contractor as per Ext.P16. Relying on Ext.P16, he submitted Ext.P17 representation to the first respondent seeking the said benefit on a par with the beneficiary of Ext.P16. In this writ petition, counsel confines his prayer for consideration of Ext.P17 representation in the light of Ext.P16 mentioned above. 2. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. Having regard to the pendency of Ext.P17 representation and as the petitioner is claiming parity with the benefit given to the WPC.No.24263 /2010 :2 : beneficiary of Ext.P16, I dispose of this writ petition directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P17 representation in the light of relevant records, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. It is clarified that this court has not expressed anything on merits of the claim and that it is up to the Government to consider whether the petitioner is eligible for benefit of revision of rates claimed by the petitioner. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/