IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13816 of 2008 with CWJC No. 13819 of 2008 --- M/S SHARDA CONSTRUCTION, a partnership firm having its office at New Area, Maharajganj Road, Aurangabad, Bihar through it’s partner Kaushal Kumar Singh son of late Ambika Narayan Singh, resident of New Area,P.S. Aurangabad,District- Aurangabad,Bihar. ... Petitioner in both cases. Versus. 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar,Patna. 2. The Engineeer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar,Patna. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department Works Circle,Gaya. 4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Aurangabad. ....Respondents in both cases. --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad (In both cases) For the State : Mr. Harendra Pd.Singh,G.A.VI (In CWJC No. 13816/08) Mr.Rajiv Kr. Singh, J.C. to G.A.VI For the State (In CWJC No. 13819/08): Mr. Sanjay Kr. Sharma, JC to GA IV. - - --- 3 2.12.2008 Both these writ petitions involve the same question and as such are taken up together for their final disposal with the consent of the parties at the stage of admission itself. Petitioner had entered into contract with the respondent- State for strengthening and widening of certain roads. The contracts were entered into with the State in the Standard Form-F2 These forms of contract admittedly did not provide any cost escalation in course of executing the tender. A dispute arose with regard to statutory increase in wages and taxes and the State Government vide its decision dated 5.4.2007 included the said clauses in the Standard Bidding Document. For road contracts, bitumen is one of the main cost 2 intensive ingredient. The price of bitumen is controlled by the Government through Ministry of Petroleum and the Oil Company. Its stand now admitted is that while working the contract ,there were abnormal rise in price of bitumen and petitioner had to pay a heavy price for getting the same. The dispute now is whether this price of escalation would be given to the petitioner or not ? Petitioner submits that such abnormal increase in price at the hands of the government or government company could be anticipated. It was submitted that government must do what is just and fair and must be not unjust which forces the petitioner into loses because of situation beyond their control . In my view, situation has been changed by the government itself.By circular dated 18.3.2008, the government has yet to incorporate and give benefit of clause 10CA of Standard Bidding Document for these Form-2 contract as well. This question was considered by this Court in earlier judgment of the petitioner’s case itself in relation to another contract being judgment dated 8.2.2008 wherein this Court ultimately on review of the whole matter directed that the petitioner was entitled to get benefit of escalation clause and get benefit within two months. In view of the facts noted above , in view of the judgment as noted above and in view of the fair stand of the learned counsel for the State that the judgment applies equally to the present case, I direct that in terms of clause 10 CA of the Standard Bidding 3 Document, as noted in Government Circular dated 18.3.2008, the petitioner would be entitled for both these contracts to get price escalation in respect of bitumen. The same should be calculated by the respondent- authority and benefit given to the petitioner within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the respondent- Executive Engineer. With these observations and directions, these writ petitions stand disposed of. SINGH (Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.)