This writ petition is filed by a Contractor who was awarded with the work of construction of the Mini Civil Station at Mananthavady. The agreement was executed on 26.7.2002 with a stipulation to complete the work within two years. The rates for the work was fixed on the basis of the schedule of rates of the year 1999. However, the site was handed over to the petitioner only on 28.10.2003. According to the petitioner, on account of the delay in handing over the site, the costs of the construction was escalated. The petitioner relies on a Government Circular to claim 80% excess over the agreed rate. The petitioner has approached this Court in W.P.(C.) No.15964/2006, this Court directed the Secretary, Public Works Department, to consider the request as per the judgment dated 20.6.2006. The Arbitration Committee consist of technical experts recommended 35% revision for the entire work. The Government as per Ext.P10 proceedings, however, restricted enhancement at 35% to the work executed after 4.11.2005. It is to be noted that no reason has been assigned in Ext.P10 to differ with the reasoning of the Arbitration Committee in Ext.P7. The petitioner, thereafter, again requested for reconsideration of Ext.P10. The request was accepted. However, limiting the claim for the work executed after 25.7.2004. This order is produced as Ext.P12. This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P10 and P12 and seeking a direction to implement the decision of the Arbitration Committee.
2. The Arbitration Committee is a technical committee have gone into various facts and stated reasons for awarding enhancement at 35%. The Government disagreed by restricting the period of enhanced rate. The dis-agreement must be with reasons. Though nothing has been stated in Ext.P10 in spite of reconsideration sought by the petitioner, the Government have not come forward to state the reason for restricting enhancement with effect from 25.07.2004 in Ext.P12.
3. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has executed the supplemental agreement without protest. Therefore, the petitioner is estopped from raising the claim for enhanced rate. The petitioner has produced Ext.P13. It is clearly stated in Ext.P13 that the petitioner proposes to execute the supplemental agreement without prejudice to his rights and claims for payment of Rs.54,63,970/- with interest at 18% annum and execution of the agreement would be under protest. Ext.P13 is dated 21.12.2009. The supplemental agreement was executed on the next day. In view of the petitioner's protest in respect of executing supplemental agreement, the objection raised by the respondent in the counter affidavit is untenable. Therefore, in the light of the above discussions in the afore- noted paragraphs, there is no reason for restricting the petitioner's claim for enhanced rate with effect from 25.07.2004. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced rate to the entire work based on Ext.P7 decision of the Arbitration Committee.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be a direction to the respondents to disburse the amount due to the petitioner in the light of Ext.P7 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln