JUDGMENT
K.M Joseph, J.
Appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed seeking to declare that the respondents are bound by Ext.P1 agreement and they have absolutely no right to vary or modify the agreed terms and conditions in Ext.P1 agreement unilaterally and also for a direction to comply with Ext.P1 agreement strictly in terms of the obligation thereunder. A writ of certiorari is also sought to quash Exts.P4, P7, P9, P10, P17, P18, P19 and P20.
2. The appellant company entered into Ext.P1 agreement which is the Minimum Guarantee Agreement on 8.12.1993 with the Ist respondent Board for electrification of its labour quarters and other installations. The case of the appellant is that it is a one sided agreement. By Ext.P2 dated 9.4.1994 the appellant requested the 2nd respondent for extending the electrical supply in terms of Ext.P1 Petitioner again wrote on 16.7.1997 vide Ext.P3 to comply with the agreement. There is no reply and it is after seven years in 2000 vide Ext.P4 the respondent informed the appellant that the work will be started soon and the appellant was requested to arrange for revising the Minimum Guarantee Agreement of the work. There is reference to various correspondence between the parties. The Board took the stand that the amounts fixed in Ext.P1 agreement was liable for variation. The appellant came to Court complaining that there is clear delay on the part of the respondents in honouring the obligations under Ext.P1 agreement and the hike in cost and insistence of execution of revised Minimum Guarantee Agreement whereunder the appellant is called upon to pay a larger sum is totally unjustified.
3. The learned Single Judge took the view that it is not a fit case for consideration under Article 226 and relegated the appellant to pursue the remedies open to it otherwise. It is feeling aggrieved by the above, the appellant is before us.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board Sri. C.K Karunakaran.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the documentary evidence itself would establish that there is delay on the part of the respondents, and, therefore the learned Single Judge erred in relegating the appellant to prefer civil suit.
6. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board would submit that as to what exactly the reason for the delay are all matters which can be only considered after oral evidence is adduced. He would also point out that the work was taken up when it was ripe in terms of the priority and the lines were drawn around 6 k.ms over difficult terrain and this is not a matter which can be decided in these proceedings.
7. In Ext.P1 Minimum Guarantee Agreement it is inter alia stated as follows. The amount guaranteed as shown in column five is liable to variation if the actual cost of the work exceeds the estimated cost. The case of the Board is that the actual cost of work has exceeded the estimated cost. The definite question would be as to whether the increase in the actual cost is attributable to the delay on the part of the Board. In Ext.P3 the appellant had sought for out of turn priority in terms of a Board order and the case of the Board is that the appellant is not entitled to preference.
After having perused the documents and heard the counsel we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was right in relegating the appellant to pursue its remedies elsewhere if so advised. We see no merit in the appeal. The appeal fails and it is dismissed.
Comments