IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30458 of 2008(A) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.J.SEBASTIAN, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 54, THOTTAKATH HOUSE, EDAYAR, BINANIPURAM 683502. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE SECRETARY, ELOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ELOOR, UDYOGAMANDAL.P.O,ERNAKULAM DIST 683501. BY SRI. V. SANKARA RAJA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.30458 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a contractor who undertook execution of certain contract work on behalf of the respondent, Panchayath. The work was not completed within the time stipulated in spite of granting extension of time. The petitioner has got a case that it is not because of his fault that the work could not be completed within time. The petitioner now submits that the contract was signed in 2004 and after 4 years, the price of materials have increased steeply and if the petitioner is to compete the work at the rates originally agreed upon, he would incur heavy loss. The petitioner therefore filed Ext.P7 application before the respondent seeking revision of rates. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 expeditiously. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent stoutly opposes the contentions of the petitioner. According to her, the entire blame for delay in completing the work rests squarely on the petitioner alone. She would even submit that the petitioner has left the site taking all his W.P(C)No.30458 of 2008 - 2 - implements, machinery etc abandoning the work and as such he is not a person entitled to the discretionary orders of this Court. 3. I am not inclined to go into the merits of the rival contentions. It is for the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 expeditiously. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. I make it abundantly clear that I have not considered any of the contentions of the parties on merits and it is upto the respondent to decide the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner shall forward a copy of this writ petition along with a certified copy of this judgment to the respondent for compliance. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs