IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37495 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION CO (P) LTD., 5TH FLOOR, ALPHA PLAZA, K.P.VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-682 020, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, GEORGE VARKEY. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.VARGHESE SMT.SANTHA VARGHESE SRI.NIHAD MOHAMED BASHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS (D) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS & BRIDGES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS & BRIDGES) SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.37495/2009-F ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a registered 'A' Class Contractor under the Kerala Public Works Department. The petitioner was awarded the construction work of Dalavapuram-Pallikody Bridge in Chavara Constituency, Kollam District by the third respondent. A formal agreement was entered into on 17/12/2001 between the petitioner and the third respondent on behalf of the Governor of Kerala. The main prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P8 representation filed by the petitioner on its merits in the background of recommendations of respondent Nos.2 to 4 on the same. 2. The petitioner had earlier moved the Government seeking for various reliefs, which was replied as per Ext.P7 wherein the view taken by the Government is that no interest is payable on delayed payments and no claim on account of cost variation can be permitted. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P2 is the Circular which squarely applies in the case of the petitioner and, therefore, as there is no detailed consideration on the various aspects pointed out by the petitioner, a reconsideration of the same is required and, accordingly, W.P.(C). No.37495/2009 -:2:- the petitioner has filed Ext.P8 representation. Ext.P9 is produced to show that the claims of the petitioner have been recommended by the departmental officers. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. As the petitioner has already moved the Government by Ext.P8 representation, there will be a direction to the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P8 after considering all the aspects within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms