Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 16142
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
JOSEPH JACOB – Appellant
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) 7933/2022
REBIN VINCENT GRALAN DINESH G WARRIER(K/904/2016) VIMAL VIJAY(K/000214/2018) AJIT JOY ANEESH JAMES(K/214-D/2008)
Disputes arising from contractual relationships should be resolved through appropriate legal proceedings, not writ petitions, especially when they involve disputed facts.
Headnote:(A) Contract Law - Revision of Rates - The petitioner, a contractor, challenged the rejection of his claim for rate revision after completing work under adverse conditions, despite a clause prohibiting such revisions. The Board's findings indicated no delay on their part and that the contractor's claims were settled as per the original agreement. (Paras 2, 3, 6)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that disputes arising from contractual relationships should not be adjudicated in writ petitions, as they involve disputed facts requiring appropriate legal proceedings. (Paras 3, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was awarded a contract for constructing a 220 KV D.C line, which faced delays and disputes over payment and rate revisions. The Board accepted a completion report but rejected the claim for rate revision based on contractual terms.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Board had not delayed the project and that the contractor's claims had been settled according to the original contract.
Issues: The main issues included whether the Board was responsible for delays and if the contractor was entitled to a revision of rates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the contractor's claims were settled as per the contract and that disputes of fact should be resolved through appropriate legal channels, not in writ petitions.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P15 proceedings and seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to release a sum of Rs.45,93,750/- being the revision of rate with future interest @12% from the date of completion of the work till recovery.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner is a contractor of the K.S.E.B, who has been issued with Ext.P1 work order for the construction and drawing of 220 KV D.C line from Sabarigiri to Edamon. The said work was originally awarded to another contractor, but due to the dispute between the contractor and K.S.E.B., the work was abandoned. The petitioner submits that the said line passes through the dense forest of Western Ghats and for drawing of the line, the workers had to work in extreme adverse conditions. Though clause 28 of Ext.P1 mandates that no revision of rates will be allowed on any account, the same was not accepted by the petitioner. Thereupon he addressed to the respondent that without the revision of rates he is not prepared to take up the work. In response to his letter, Ext.P2 communication was issued wherein the Board has agreed that rates will be firm during the contract period of 15 months from the date of execution of the agreement and if the work is not completed within this period solely due to the omissions /commissions on the part of the Board, the petitioner is free to open the issue after the contract period. After completion of the work with much difficulty, the petitioner submitted the final bill, which of course exceeded the original estimate. Therefore, some dispute arose with regard to the fixation of quantum of amount due to the petitioner. The respondents slept over his final bill for more than 8 years and aggrieved by the same the petitioner has approached this Court filing W.P.(C)No.12625/2004 and this Court directed the Board to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and thereafter the said representation was disposed of as per Ext.P4 wherein it is decided as follows:
“The entire matter was placed before the Full Board and as per the direction of the Full Board, negotiation was made with the contractor by the Chief Engineer (Transmission- South) and then by Member (Transmission). An amount of Rs.13.19 Lakhs which includes retention is pending payment to the contractor. Since the work is entrusted with rate contract basis, claim of the contractor for revision of rate is not agreeable. The contractor has refused to come down from his claims for rate revision and requested to release the payment for the earth filling at Location. No.5.
Considering the matter in detail, the Board decided to accept the completion report amounting to Rs.1,83,51,602/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Three Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Six Hundred and Two only) in favour of Sri.Joseph Jacob towards the work of construction of 220 KV DC line from Sabarigiri – Edamon provided the overall claims are limited to the estimate as per completion report subject to verification of the measurement(and subject to the condition that no escalation of rates will be allowed over and above the agreed rate as per the contract.
The Board further orders that final payment and retention along with the amount withheld to the contractor, Sri. Joseph Jacob towards the above work be released. The actual expenditure incurred by the contractor for filling the revetment at Location No.5 of the line will be worked out and released.”
Being not satisfied with Ext.P4, Ext.P5 request was made by the petitioner, which was disposed of as per Ext.P6 and the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“8. Earlier, Board had entrusted the then Member (Transmission) to conduct a personal hearing with Sri. Joseph Jacob for working out a package for settlement of the claims of the contractor. Accordingly, a meeting was conducted with the contractor on 17.07.2006. In the meeting, the contractor has raised a claim of Rs. 5 Lakh for the subj
