P T THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though Mr.Babu Joseph presented the disposal of a representation before the Government, as the government Pleader raised an objection, the matter was subjected to a greater scrutiny. Petitioner had entered into an agreement with the Government of Kerala in respect of the contract work, numbered as Agreement No.19/SESC/2001-2002. He submits that because of reasons beyond his control, and non-availability of river sand, on the specific instructions of the authorities who were supervising the work, he had made available fine crushed sand as substitute for sand. Extra expenses, therefore had been incurred by the petitioner on the said work. Documents produced in the Original Petition show that petitioner had made a request as above and in effect, his claims had been endorsed by Departmental Officers. Petitioner had placed requests with the Chief Engineer as also the State Government to look into the matter and for sanctioning the extra-expenditure incurred by him. Ext.P4 is the representation submitted by the petitioner before the Government.

(2.) For want of action, petitioner had filed this Original Petition requesting for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to consider and pass final orders on the representation (Ext.P4).

(3.) Government Pleader submits that whatever be motive for the petitioner to approach the Government, being an issue arising from a contract which has been entered into between the parties, the Government was not obliged to consider the matter or representations, notwithstanding the recommendation that had been forwarded to them. The claim is in relation to execution of a contract is ill-advised.