M/S.Madras Infra v. The Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.02.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR M/s.Madras Infra Represented by its Managing Partner, Mr.B.S.Loganath, 31-1, Mayflower Avenue, Meena Estate, Udayampalyam, Coimbatore- 641028.

... Petitioner

Versus

The Commissioner Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Big, Bazar Street, Townhall, Coimbatore - 641 001. ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 20.09.2022 wherein a request has been made for the payment of price escalation which according to the petitioner works out to Rs. 2, 11, 15, 000/- (Rupees Two Crore Eleven Lakh fifteen thousand only) within a reasonable time frame as fixed by this Honourable Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaraman For Respondents : Mr.D.R.Arunkumar, Standing Counsel for Coimbatore Corporation 1/5

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 20.09.2022 wherein a request has been made for the payment of price escalation which according to the petitioner works out to Rs. 2,11,15,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Eleven Lakh fifteen thousand only) within a reasonable time frame as fixed by this Honourable Court.

2. Mr.D.R.Arunkumar, Standing Counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Corporation had issued work orders based on successful bidding in tender notification issued by the respondent from the year 2017 to 2018. The Respondent Corporation, considering the terms of the tender and also considering the implementation of works made by the petitioner, has given an extension to the work orders and the respondent have also informed the petitioner to do such extension of works at the same price of the tender already granted. The petitioner also completed the works during the extended period and the petitioner requested the respondent to pay price escalation for the works which have been executed after extension. 2/5

The respondent informed that appropriate decision will be taken in this regard. However, no order is passed so far by the respondent. The petitioner made a representation to the respondent on 20.09.2022 requesting the payment of price escalation which according to the petitioner works out to Rs.2,11,15,000/-. There is no response from the respondent Corporation and hence, the present petition.

4. Such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that a positive direction cannot be given to pay the escalated price as the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner itself is only to consider his representation. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.09.2022 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Merely because this Court directs the respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation and it would not give any right to the petitioner to claim escalated price. The disputed issue should be raised in accordance with the contractual terms.

3/5

5. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 10.02.2023 rli Index : Yes/No To The Commissioner Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Big, Bazar Street, Townhall, Coimbatore - 641 001. 4/5

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

rli 10.02.2023 5/5