IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.155 of 2010 M/S DHANPAT PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 28.1.2011 None appears for the petitioner. Heard Mr. Prashant Pratap, learned G.P.6. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been filed against the order dated 30.11.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.No.30.11.2009 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for payment of entire escalation amount of Rs.20,23,270/- was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant was awarded contract work on 2.11.2006 regarding construction of 75 bedded Hospital at Rajauli. The project was to be completed by 2.5.2008, which period was subsequently extended to 31.7.2009. After completion of the work, the appellant raised bill for payment and he also made claim for due compensation for escalation of price of cement and steel in terms of resolution of the Building 2 Construction Department, Government of Bihar dated 17.7.2008 contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The representation of the appellant for compensation for escalation of prices was forwarded by the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer who approved it. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Executive Engineer instead of paying entire payment of Rs.20,23,270/- had paid only a sum of 7,58,556/- and forwarded the rest of the claim to the Chief Engineer, South Building Construction Department by letter no. 135 dated 2.3.2009 which was ultimately rejected. We find that the circular granting compensation for escalation of price of raw materials came into effect from 17.7.2008 and as such the appellant was granted payment of price of escalation from 17.7.2008 onwards and was rightly denied escalation price prior to the period of 17.7.2008. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that if the escalation in price of raw materials is granted to the appellant right from 2006, it would be getting undue advantage over other tenderers 3 KHAN who could have quoted higher rate. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.11.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.No.5753 of 2009. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. (S.K.Katriar,J) (S.P.Singh,J)