IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 25601 of 2000(W) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.S. JAYASING, S/O. VAIKKATTIL SREENIVASAN, P.O. ENGANDIYUR, THRISSUR, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE, SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN, SMT.NISHA BOSE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SURFACE AND TRANSPORT, NEW DELHI. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, TIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR, KERALA. BY SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. S.G. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 43180/2000 IN O.P. NO. 25601/2000-W DISMISSED 14/03/2008. SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 13/04/98 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE MEMO OF WORK TENDERED ATTACHED TO AGREEMENT DTD. 17/04/1998. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF REMITTANCE ATTACHED TO THE AGREEMENT DTD. 17/04/1998. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 17/04/1998 PAGE 2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF AGREEMENT DTD. 17/04/1998 CONTRAINING CLAUSE 3 (A) II (A). EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 31/03/1999 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 24/11/1999 BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 02/02/2000 ISSUED BY R.4. TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ======================= O.P.No.25601 of 2000-W. ======================= Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T The 2nd respondent invited tenders for the collection of toll from vehicles using the permanent bridges at Pudhuponnani, Chettuva and Kottappuram. The period of the collection of toll was from the date of handing over the site till 31.3.1999. The petitioner being the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.87,15,000/- his tender was accepted. Ext.P1 supports the said averment of the petitioner. After executing the agreement the petitioner deposited security for the due performance and observance of the terms and conditions of the agreement and furnished a certificate of solvency for Rs.2 lakhs also. He had to remit the agreed amount in different instalments totaling 50. Each instalments were for an amount of Rs.1,67,139/- payable by the end of every week commencing from 25.4.1998. The 50th instalment which fell due on 1.4.1999 and the amount was Rs.1,19,285/-. O.P.No.25601 of 2000-W. -: 2 :- 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the agreement he is made liable to pay the proportionate amount payable every week at the end of the week and to pay interest at 12% for default apart from penal interest of 20% in certain cases if there is delay of more than 3 days from the due dates fixed as per Ext.P3 till the 10 day from the due date. There was also a clause for terminating the agreement and forfeiture of the security deposit, if the amount is not remitted on or before the 10th day from every due date. Aggrieved by the same he filed Ext.P7 representation. By Ext.P8 it was informed that as per the agreement conditions his request cannot be considered. 3. The challenge is against the terms of an agreement executed between the petitioner and the Government. The attempt of the petitioner is to get the terms of the contract varied in these proceedings. Reliance is placed on Rule 7(10) of the National Highway (fees for use of permanent bridges) Rules to support the argument. It cannot be disputed that he has entered into the agreement with open eyes after agreeing for the various terms of O.P.No.25601 of 2000-W. -: 3 :- the contract. The terms of the contract clearly bind the petitioner. Rule 7(10) is in general terms, and nothing prevents the parties to a contract in agreeing for specific terms governing the rights and obligations of the parties. Superintending Engineer is only an officer of the State and he cannot obviously vary the terms of the contract executed by the petitioner with the Government. He cannot sit in judgment over the terms of the agreement. Hence Ext.P8 cannot be said to be unsustainable. If the petitioner is so advised he is at liberty to file a civil suit. The Original Petition is therefore dismissed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-