Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran
1. Though Mr. Babu Joseph presented the matter as a routine Original Petition for expeditious disposal of a representation before the Government, as the Government Pleader raised an objection, the matter was subjected to a greater scrutiny. Petitioner had entered into an agreement with the Government of Kerala in respect of the contract work, numbered as Agreement No. 19/SESC/2001-, 2002. He submits that because of reasons beyond his control, and non-availability, of river sand, on the specific instructions of the authorities who were supervising the work, he had made available fine crushed sand as substitute for sand. Extra expenses, therefore had been incurred by the petitioner on the said work.. Documents produced in the Original Petition show that petitioner had made a request as above and in effect, his claims had been endorsed by Departmental Officers. Petitioners had placed requests with the Chief Engineer as also the State Government to look into the matter and for sanctioning the extra-expenditure incurred by him. Ext.P4 is the representation submitted by the petitioner before the Government.For want of action, petitioner had filed this Original Petition requesting for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to consider and pass final orders on the representation (Ext. P4).
2. Government Pleader submits that whatever be the motive for the petitioner to approach the Government, being an issue arising from a contract which has been entered into between the parties, the Government was not obliged to consider the matter or representations, notwithstanding the recommendation that had been forwarded to them. The claim is in relation to execution of a contract and a short cut as attempted is ill-advised.I see, prima facie, substances in the argument. Petitioner has entered into agreement with the Governor of Kerala. Perhaps, he might have incurred additional expenditure for the work. The work might have turned out to be a loss or he may not have made a profit margin to his expectations. However, on the reports of the Officers, it may not be possible for the petitioner to content that application filed to the Government, has to be disposed of at this stage. The Officers cannot bind the hands of the Government. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, term of contract governs the parties and the petitioner has'' to move appropriately in accordance with the stipulation in the contract. To force the Government to pass orders on a representation made, either during the tenure of the contract, or at the conclusion thereof is likely to expose the Government to consequences which might be of far reaching implications. It will annual or have the effect of modifying the terms of contract, and such a course may, not be in public interest, as largesses of the Government are likely to be silently cornered: Ext. P4 does not require to be mandatorily disposed of by the Government and they have no statutory duty to entertain or consider such representation.I therefore see no reason to entertain this matter. Accordingly, this Original Petition is dismissed. This will not in any way prejudice the rights, if any the petitioner may have in him.
