IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38298 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- REMLATH BEEVI.M , W/O.MUHAMMED SHAH AGED 60 YEARS, ENGINEER & CONTRACTOR, JUMRAT-AL-USTA, ALISSERY,ALAPPUZHA-1 BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 2. KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NEAR RAMANILAYAM, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR -1 3. THE CONTRUCTION ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD NEAR CHANDANAKAVU TEMPLE, ALAPPUZHA-1 4. THE PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FIRE STATION ROAD, MANNAM PO, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ,PIN 683 520. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH R2 TO R4 BY ADV.SRI. RANJITH THAMBAN, SC FOR KLDC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 38298 of 2010 J ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was awarded four works as per Exts.P1 to P4 agreements. For various reasons, the works could not be completed. According to the petitioner, the works were awarded to him applying the 2004 schedule of rates. It is stated that in the meanwhile, Government revised the schedule of rates and 2008 rates were fixed. Petitioner filed Ext.P9 representation, claiming the benefit of 2008 schedule of rates for the works executed after 27-02-2008. However, that representation was rejected by Ext.P12 order. It is challenging Ext.P12, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Petitioner has no case that under the agreements executed, he had any right to claim revision of rates. If that be so, even if the rates were revised in the meanwhile, it cannot be said that the petitioner has any right to claim the benefit of such revision. Even otherwise, the reasons stated W.P.(C) No.38298/2010 : 2 : in Ext.P12 for rejection of rates are unassailable and this Court will not be justified in interfering with Ext.P12. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge