AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner, who is an approved Contractor of KSEB Ltd., is before this Court seeking to implement the revised rate of SOR 2012 to the
petitioner's work for the construction of Nilambur â€" Adyanpara 33 KVSC line and to direct the respondents to re-calculate the final bill of the
petitioner's awarded work based on the revision in SOR 2012 and on the basis of Ext.P10 statement of the 3rd respondent.
The petitioner states that he is an approved Contractor of the KSEB Ltd. who has been undertaking contract works. The petitioner was awarded
the work of Nilambur-Adyanpara 33 KVSC lane as per work order dated 15.09.2011. Ext.P1 agreement was executed by the petitioner with the
Executive Engineer, Transmission Division on 30.09.2011. The work was for an amount of `69,02,029/-.
The petitioner states that the work had to be completed by 31.03.2012. But, the work was considerably delayed due to unforeseen circumstances
arising after the execution of the agreement. The work was completed only on 30.04.2015 and the final bill amount was paid to the petitioner on
24.05.2016.
The petitioner states that the estimate of the work undertaken and completed by the petitioner was worked out as per SOR 2010. In the
interregnum, the CPWD SOR 2012 was brought into force, taking into account the escalation of price of commodities and labour costs. The Kerala
State Electricity Board, as per Ext.P5 order dated 25.07.2014, adopted the SOR 2012 and National Building Code Guidelines in the Kerala State
Electricity Board Ltd. The petitioner states that since the SOR 2012 was intended to be applied from the year 2012 and the petitioner could start work
only in the year 2014, the respondents are liable to revise the estimate of the work completed by the petitioner in tune with Ext.P5 order and pay the
balance amount due to the petitioner forthwith.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the work could not be started and completed within time for no fault of the petitioner. The
work could not be started in time since there was an interim order of the Additional District Magistrate, Malappuram, inhibiting commencement of
work. The work could be commenced only after the litigation. The respondents are aware of the fact that the delay in commencing and completing the
work is not due to any fault of the petitioner.
Respondents 1 to 4 contested the writ petition filing counter affidavit. According to the respondents, the dispute raised by the petitioner is of civil
nature and has to be adjudicated before Civil Court. The respondents pointed out that the petitioner was awarded the work at 39% above the estimate.
Therefore, delay in execution of the work has not adversely affected the petitioner in a substantial manner.
The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 further pointed out that the KSEB Ltd. has accorded sanction to adopt CPWD SOR 2012 in
Ext.P5 dated 25.07.2014, with prospective effect only. Therefore, the said revision will be applicable only to those work which have been assigned on
or after 25.07.2014. The petitioner has no legal right to claim the revised rates. Assuming that the petitioner is entitled thereto, the revised amount
would come only `1,20,449/-, which is 2.07% above agreed rate. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed for all the above reasons, contended the
Standing Counsel for the KSEB.
The petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondents as per Ext.P1 agreement dated 30.09.2011. During the said period, SOR 2010 was
applicable. Estimate was prepared on that basis. Subsequently, the CPWD revised their rates as per SOR 2012. The revision of rates by the CPWD
will not give any rights to the petitioner for payment at revised rates.
The petitioner has raised her claim on Ext.P5 order of the KSEB by which the KSEB adopted SOR 2012. Ext. P5 order would unequivocally state
that “sanction is also accorded to adopt CPWD SOR and National Building Code Guidelines in the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. with
prospective effectâ€. This shall be made applicable to civil and electrical works with prospective effect. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the
petitioner's contract with the respondents being anterior to the date of Ext.P5, the petitioner cannot claim revised rates under Ext.P5.
The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into an agreement with KSEB and work order was issued to
the petitioner in the year 2011. Due to unexpected litigations, the work could not be commenced till 2014. The litigation arose not due to any volition of
the petitioner. The work which originally was to be completed in the year 2012, could be completed only in the year 2015. In the meanwhile, the cost
of materials and labour has increased. As the delay in execution of the work was not due to any fault of the petitioner, the respondents are bound to
compensate the petitioner for the cost escalation.
It is an admitted case that, the agreement entered into by the petitioner with the respondents, has no price escalation clause. Therefore, the
petitioner cannot make any claim for price escalation based on the agreement. May be the petitioner has a claim for damages. But, such damages
cannot be computed and awarded in writ proceedings. Ext.P11 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.32929/2014 relied on by the petitioner, is
distinguishable on facts.
In the circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the claim made by the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.