The court emphasized the importance of fair consideration for adjustments in contract estimates based on actual costs incurred.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 04th day of August, 2022 The petitioner, an A class contractor, was awarded the work, Providing 40 mm BC Overlay to Thodupuzha Puliyanmala Road Km.8/000 to 39/500”, by the 2nd respondent. As per the terms of the contract the Bituminous Concrete (BC) work had to be carried out using Natural Rubber Modified Bitumen (NRMB). However, while the work was in progress, there arose acute shortage of NRMB. Therefore, the petitioner sought permission to use VG-30 instead of NRMB. Based on the permission granted, petitioner proceeded the BC work with VG-30. Later the 2nd respondent issued a communication to the 3rd respondent stating that since VG-30 was used instead of NRMP, that should be considered as an extra item and new revised estimate submitted. On that basis, a new revised estimate was submitted, wherein the price of NRMB as agreed under the item rate BOQ was replaced with the VG-30 rate that existed at the time of tender. According to the petitioner this rate is extremely low and does not reflect the actual cost incurred when the product was purchased. In spite of the petitioner’s objection the secured estimate was approved by Ext.P7. The petitioner has submitted Exts.P8 and P9 for cancelling the revised estimate and to award the actual cost incurred.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will satisfied with respondents 2 and 4 being directed to consider Exts.P8 and P9 and to take a reasoned decision thereon.

3.Learned Government Pleader submits that the such as direction can be issued, but the liberty to take appropriate decision, based on relevant aspects, should be given to respondents 2 and 4.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, directing respondents 2 and 4 to consider Exts.P8 and P9 and pass appropriate orders thereon, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner's representative. The order, as directed above, shall be passed within four weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

V.G ARUN JUDGE

SJ

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24214/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED

17.02.2021 FOR THE WORK "NON PLAN ROAD WORKS - 2020-21 - PROVIDING 40MM BC OVERLAY TO THODUPUZHA PULIYANMALA ROAD KM.8/000 TO 39/500".

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM THE AGREEMENT FOR THE WORK DATED 19.02.2021.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER LETTER DATED 13.12.2021 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S LETTER DATED 21.12.2021 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION ATTESTING TO THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER COMPLETED THE WORK IN ALL RESPECTS ON 28.02.2022.

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED

25.04.2022 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE

2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S COMMUNICATION DATED 20.06.2022 TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DATED 24.06.2022 TO THE

2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DATED 01.07.2022 TO THE

2ND RESPONDENT.