TOMAR CONSRUCTION Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions of law are involved in both these petitions and as facts and relevant claims are also identical, they are being disposed of by this common order :

(2.) Petitioners were granted contract by the Public Works Department for the purpose of various construction work as indicated in the agreement. However, grievance of the petitioners is that in Part 3 of the contract agreement under Paragraph -26, a formula has been prescribed for the purpose of adjustment of price of the contract. It is said that one of the factors relevant for adjustment is labour payment, which is indicated as 'R' in the contract but in the formula indicated in Paragraph 26, as word 'R' is missing, it is said that the formula is incomplete and, therefore, the same should be corrected. Claiming correction of this, initially, petitioners seem to have approached this Court and it was the case of the petitioners that even though, the Chief Engineer and certain other officers have recommended for correction of the contract agreement but by the impugned order, the respondents have rejected the correction and said that there is no error in the contract.

(3.) According to the petitioners, there being error in not including the factor 'R' in the price adjustment formula as indicated in Paragraph 26 of the contract due to which, the petitioners are suffering loss and, therefore, the same should be corrected. Challenging the impugned order passed vide Annexure -P1, petitioners have filed these writ petitions.