THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1822 of 2010 ORDER: Proddatur Municipality issued a notice, dated 01.11.2008, inviting tenders for construction of Shopping Complex at JNF Road, Proddatur. The petitioner emerged as the highest tenderer by quoting a sum of Rs.3,60,63,752/-, which was 4.5% excess of the estimated value of the work. The contract was entered into. In the course of execution of the work, the petitioner submitted the bills. However, the respondents started deduction of certain amounts from the bills on the ground that the cost of some of the items of material has comedown. The petitioner contends that there are Clauses in the tender notice itself which are to the effect that no claim for escalation or variation of the value would be entertained on the grounds of change in the cost of the material, such as steel and cement. Respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit. It is admitted that according to the terms of the contract, the petitioner is not entitled to be paid any amount on account of escalation. Reference is made to the manner of execution of work, such as by using the machinery etc. Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents have an option to incorporate the conditions in the tender notice, which either enable payment of escalation charges or denial of the same. In the instant case, Clauses 21 and 25 of the agreement clearly indicate that it shall be the obligation of the petitioner to procure material such as steel, cement, bitumen, blasting material etc., and that no claim for escalation will be entertained. Therefore, the respondents are under obligation to pay the bills strictly as per the measurements without taking into account the upward and downward fluctuation in the cost of the material. Though reference is made to G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 16.04.2009, it cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. The reason is that the agreement did not provide for any changes on the grounds of fluctuation of the rates. A general G.O. cannot govern the situation. Other grounds urged by the respondents in effecting deductions are equally untenable. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the bills to the petitioner strictly in accordance with the rates mentioned in the tender notice and as per the actual measurements. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.03.2011. kdl