IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37994 of 2007(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR, 'PRANAVAM', THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA - 6. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO, ADV. SMT.N.SHOBHA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TOLL TENDER COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS & BRIDGES), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROADS AND BRIDGES), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, (ROADS AND BRIDGES), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ========================= W.P.(C)NO.37994 OF 2007 ========================= Dated this the 15th day of January 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was a successful contractor for toll collection from the New Cochin Bridge at Cheruthuruthy in Thrissur District. According to him, contract is for the period from 1.9.2007 to 31.3.2008 and the quoted rate was Rs.13,90,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the toll collection should have commenced from 1.9.2007, the petitioner could commence it only with effect from 16.12.2007 as the site was not handed over to them. In view of the reduction in the contract period, petitioner submitted Ext.P3 before the 4th respondent requesting for extending the period of the contract proportionately. 2.If the period of contract is fixed, the contractor's tenure can only be for the permitted period. In the meanwhile, if according to the petitioner, the other party to the contract has committed breach of contract by not handing over the site to the petitioner, the remedy available to the petitioner is not ask for W.P.(C)37994/2007 2 extension of the contract period, but to claim damages. Therefore the petitioner cannot ask for extending the period of the contract beyond 31.3.2008. 3. That apart, the learned Government Pleader also points out on instructions that the petitioner need only pay for the period he has collected toll and that too only at proportionate rates. If the petitioner's liability is thus proportionately reduced, petitioner cannot have any legally enforcible grievance in this matter. Writ petition therefore fails. Dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE css/