Petitioner is a Government contractor. During the year 2004, he was awarded the work of construction of an office for the Registration Department at Mananthavady in Wayanad District. The agreement for the work was executed by the petitioner with the Department on 26.6.2004. Even though the site of the work was handed over to the petitioner pursuant to the agreement on 9.9.2004, the petitioner could not commence the work on account of a dispute raised by the Revenue Department pertaining to the site of the building. The dispute was resolved and the site was cleared only on 5.1.2007. Consequently, the petitioner commenced the work on 26.6.2007 and completed the work on 30.5.2008.
2. It is not disputed that though the schedule of rates prescribed by the Public Works Department for execution of public works has been revised twice before the site of the work was made available to the petitioner, he was granted only the rates prevalent during 2004 for the work executed by him in 2007. According to the petitioner, since the delay in completion of the work was attributable to the Department, he is entitled to the rates prevalent at the time of execution of the work, as extended to other contractors for undertaking similar works. However, as per Ext.P19 order, the Government rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there is no provision for revision of rates in the agreement executed by the petitioner for the work. This writ petition, in the circumstances, is instituted challenging Ext.P19 order of the Government. The petitioner also seeks directions to respondents 2 to 5 to grant him enhanced rate for the work executed by him.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The stand taken by the Government in Ext.P19 is reiterated in the counter affidavit also.
4. The petitioner relies on Exts.P8, P9, P10 and P11 communications of the offices of the Public Works department to substantiate his case that he is entitled to revision of rates. Ext.P8 is a letter addressed by the Assistant Executive Engineer concerned of the work to the Executive Engineer. In Ext.P8, it is categorically stated that the delay in the completion of the work is not attributable to the petitioner and therefore, his request for revision of rates needs to be considered. In Ext.P9 communication addressed by the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer, the Executive Engineer also endorsed the stand taken by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the work. Ext.P10 is again a communication issued by the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer. In Ext.P10 communication, it is stated that the estimate for the work was prepared based on 1999 schedule of rates and the rates have been revised by the Government in 2004 and 2007.
5. It is beyond dispute that the petitioner has executed the work. There is no complaint regarding the execution of the work. As noticed earlier, the estimate of the work awarded to the petitioner was prepared based on 1999 schedule of rates and the said schedule of rates was revised twice before the commencement of the work. It is beyond dispute that after 2004 revision of rates, estimates of the works awarded to other contractors were prepared in accordance with the revised schedule and payments were effected in accordance with the revised schedule. It is thus evident that had the petitioner been awarded the work after 2004 revision of rates, he would have got at least the rates as per the 2004 schedule of rates, like any other contractor. Then, the question is as to whether the petitioner is responsible for this differential treatment. The admitted facts as indicated above indicate beyond doubt that the petitioner is not responsible for the delay in commencement or completion of the work. If the delay in commencement or completion of the work is not attributable to the petitioner, in so far as the rates of the work are concerned, he is entitled to treated like other contractors, who were awarded works during 2007. Ext.P21 order issued by the Government indicates that in a case where there was a delay of 15 months in executing a work on account of reasons attributable to the Government, the Government have granted revision of rates to the contractor, based on the recommendation of a committee of experts.
6. In circumstances, I quash Ext.P19 order and direct the Government to constitute a committee of experts to consider the claim for enhancement made by the petitioner and to grant him rates for the work executed by him as given to other similarly placed contractors for the works executed by them during the time when the work was executed by the petitioner. This shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
tgs