(1.) Since, the issues arising for consideration, and the facts and circumstances of both the Writ Petitions are similar in nature, a common order is passed.
(2.) In the Writ Petition, in W.P(MD). No. 6347 of 2008, the Petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents to grant the benefit of price adjustment, in respect of the rise in cost of bitumen and diesel, to the Petitioner, during the agreement period, in respect of the work, which is the subject matter of the agreement No. CR. Agt. No. 32/2007-08, dated 10.08.2007, entered into between the Petitioner and the third Respondent, pertaining to the widening of the road Namanasamuthram to Ponnamaravathi Km.18/0-27/6 to 38/0-42/7. Likewise, in the Writ Petition, in W.P(MD). No. 6348 of 2008, he has prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents to grant the benefit of price adjustment, in respect of the rise in cost of bitumen and diesel, to the Petitioner, subsequent to the submission of tender, in respect of the work, which is the subject matter of the agreement No. CR. Agt. No. 2008-09, dated 02.04.2008, entered into between the Petitioner and the third Respondent, pertaining to improvement in the riding quality in Km 60/20-69/0 of NH 210.
(3.) It has been stated that the Petitioner is a registered Class 1 Contractor. He had successfully completed a number of Government works allotted to him in the past several years. While so, in respect of Writ Petition, in W.P(MD). No. 6347 of 2008, it has been stated that the second Respondent had issued a notification bearing No. 22/2006-2007/Ve.2, dated 13.03.2007, inviting applications from tenders for the widening of Namanasamuthram to Ponnamaravathi road. The Petitioner was one of the participants in the tender process. However, the tender process could not be finalized by the authorities concerned in time and the work order had been issued only, on 23.07.2007, after a gap of three months, from the date of the submission of the tender.