K.I. POULOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a contractor, seeking to quash Ext.P26 order passed by the State Government dated 21.10.2014, declining excess amount to the petitioner as per the Schedule of Rates, 2008, and for other consequential reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner is a Government contractor. According to the petitioner, petitioner has completed the contract work for the construction of Chelachuvadu- Vannapuram Road in Idukki District, as per the tender notification dated 18.01.2006, issued by the 3rd respondent. It is contended by the petitioner that, due to inordinate delay on the part of the respondents to sanction the revised estimate of the work, petitioner was constrained to request for extension of the period of the contract on several occasions. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the lapses on the part of the respondents in sanctioning the revised estimate on time, resulted in escalation of rates of materials and labour, and the petitioner had to incur huge expenditure to complete the work. That apart, it is submitted that, under such circumstances, the Government have ordered payment on the basis of revised Schedule of Rates (SOR), and Ext.P1 is one such order.

(3.) Anyhow, in order to ventilate the grievances of the petitioner, petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 representation seeking payment on the basis of Schedule of Rates 2008, which was disposed of by the 1 st respondent, in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment, as per Ext.P12 order. However, according to the petitioner, the said order was passed by the Government without taking into account the relevant materials and totally omitting to consider Exts.P9, P10 and P11 recommendations made for enhanced rate by various officials. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted Ext.P13 representation before the 1st respondent to review Ext.P12 order. But, it was rejected by the Government, which, according to the petitioner, without any valid reason, as per Ext.P14 order. Being aggrieved, Exts.P12 and P14 orders were challenged by the petitioner filing W.P.(C) No.24463 of 2012 before this Court, which was disposed of, as per Ext.P17 judgment, directing the Government to re- consider the issues involved, with specific reference to Exts.P1, P2, P8, P9, P10, P15 and P16 and pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner. It was thereupon that petitioner was heard and Ext.P26 order is passed.