IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4199 of 2010(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.M.UMMER, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. P.M.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, PULLIYIL MADASERY HOUSE, MELMURI.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR). BY ADVS. MR.E.S.M.KABEER, MR.ABDUL MAJEED.N. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT INLAND WATER NAVITGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INLAND WATER NAVIGATION DIRECTORATE, KALLADA HOUSE, ASHRAMAM, KOLLAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SUB DIVISION, PONNANI. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 4199 of 2010-Y - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a contractor who has executed an agreement with the third respondent for the work by name TFC-Development of water ways and canals-Main canal improvement to PC canal from Andathodu to Ponnani ch.310 KM to 321.556 KM-reach I from Ch.317.184 to 317.784 KM. The site was handed over to the petitioner on 2.11.2007 and the work had to be completed on or before 1.8.2008. It is submitted that there arose some delay due to the delay in demarcation of the boundary in starting the work. A part of the work has been completed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the demarcation of the site was completed only by 30.8.2008 and going by the agreement he had to complete the work on or before 1.8.2008. The petitioner therefore filed Ext.P1 representation in the matter. Even after starting the work, subsequent problems arose in the matter and ultimately an extension of time was granted upto 28.2.2010. Ext.P2 is the copy of the supplemental agreement. According to the petitioner, even now the obstruction caused by various third parties in the work site has not been cleared. The petitioner did the work to the extent wpc4199 /2010 2 possible including casting of pipes and slabs, etc. 2. The petitioner points out that due to hike in the labour charges, he is entitled for revision of the estimate prepared. He is relying upon Ext.P3 circular issued by the Government in the matter. It is therefore contended that a revision of enhancement of schedule rate is liable to be granted to the petitioner. In identical cases contracts have been terminated without risk and cost also. 3. Seeking for appropriate action in the matter, the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 representation before the Government. It is pointed out that in Exts.P4 and P5 in respect of certain other works, the Government has decided to terminate the contract without the risk and cost of the contractor. 4. It is up to the Government to take a decision in the matter and therefore there will be a direction the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P6 after considering the plea of the petitioner to make applicable Ext.P3 circular in his case also. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the wpc4199 /2010 3 writ petition before the first respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/