Point of Law: There is an offer and acceptance of the terms and conditions of the contract by and between the parties and there was a consensus ad idem, which cannot be altered unless agreed upon by the parties mutually.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY.

The appeal is preferred by the respondents in W.P.(C) No. 2465 of 2020 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 07.04.2021, whereby the writ petition was allowed and held as follows:

11. The conditions of e-tender contained in Ext.P1 would show that the starting point of a lorry for transportation would be taken as the District Headquarters (Principal Agricultural Office) from where the seeds are loaded. The bill of the contractor should contain kilometre readings taken from the starting point and at the destination, separately. Ext.P1 would further show that the bills submitted by the petitioner should be supported by copy of a bill issued by the Authority, issue note from the godown/farm/seed-farm from where the seeds are loaded and seed receipts having seal and signature of Krishi Bhavan.

12. In fact, there is no serious dispute that invoices were sanctioned based on odometer/kilometre readings at the time when the petitioner entered into contract and up to the year 2019. The system of adopting Google map readings for calculation of distance of transportation was introduced for the first time in the year 2019 only. The amount claimed by the petitioner is in respect of transportation invoice prior to the year 2019.

13. Therefore, a system which was not in vogue at the time of entering into contract and which was not included in the terms of contract between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, cannot be imposed on the petitioner, thereby denying him his dues in terms of the contract. Since the relation between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is contractual, any general decision taken by the respondents cannot be thrust upon the petitioner and that too retrospectively.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and Exts.P7, P10 and P11 are set aside. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to settle the bills/invoices of the petitioner on the basis of actual distance travelled as per odometer/kilometer readings and without adopting World Wide Web/Google Map for calculation of distance. Balance amount payable shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of one month.”

2. Material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The writ petitioner was a successful bidder in Ext. P1 e-tender dated 29.01.2015 for transportation of paddy seed in lorries from seed processing centres of Padaseksharam Samithi (Association of paddy fields), farms, go-downs under various krishi bhavans to various krishibhavans and Padasekharam Samithi (associations of paddy fields) on hire. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has successfully carried out the contract during the period 2015-2016 and he submitted the bills for payment. So also, the Kerala State Seed Development Authority--2nd appellant extended the period further based on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14124 of 2016 and issued a new work order, evident from Ext. P3 dated 21.04.2016. Altogether, the writ petitioner has submitted 37 invoices with connected way bills and documents. As per the invoices, an amount of Rs. 1,45,19,629.40 was due to the writ petitioner. However, the second respondent sanctioned only an amount of Rs.1,25,50,732.35 without assigning any reason for the deduction of the amount. Therefore, according to the writ petitioner, an amount of Rs.20,68,897.05 is remaining due to the writ petitioner.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that in spite of submission of several representations, produced as Ext. P5, the appellants have not taken any action to ventilate the grievances and accordingly, the writ petitioner has approached this Court and secured Ext. P6 judgment dated 25th January, 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 2278 of 2019, whereby the writ court directed the second appellant to consider Ext. P6 representation after hearing the writ petitioner also. Accordingly, the second appellant conducted hearing on 20.03.2019 and 18.05.2019; however, the claim of the petitioner was rejected, evident from Ext. P7. Against E