JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-. "That the petitioner by way of the instant writ application prays for the issuance of an appropriate writ upon the respondents directing them to revise the estimate of the work relating to Improvement of Road, Quality Programme of National Highway No.6 between Km 184 (portion), 190 to 197 and 205, 206 (portion) and pay the revised rate of bitumen as promised to them by the respondent no.3 and further in view of the fact that there had been an unprecedented hike in the price of bitumen subsequent to the date of applying for the tender and execution of the work." 3. Counsel for the respondents by referring to para 7 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.3 to 7 submits that the petitioner had entered into an agreement vide agreement dated 07.03.2008 and there is no such provision to provide extra cost of bitumen in the entire contract. He submits that the petitioner has quoted rate on the basis of rate in the bill of quantity which was based on the scheduled rate of 2006 and he was free to quote any rate on the basis of market rate, but as there is no such provisions of enhanced rate for extra cost of bitumen in the contract, therefore no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 4. The counter-affidavit has already been filed by the Secretary, (Road Transport and Highways), Ministry of Road Transport And Highways, Government of India wherein they have taken similar stand that in absence of any such provisions in the agreement ( Annexure-B to the counter affidavit ) for payment of revised rate of bitumen, the same cannot be granted to the petitioner. 5. From the writ petition it appears that the respondents had issued tender notice for construction of five roads, out of which four roads were of National Highway No. 33 and one road of National Highway No. 6 and out of these five works, petitioner was allotted the work with regard to Kilometer 184(portion), 190 to 197 and 205,206 (portion) of National Highway No.6. This work was assigned vide job no.06/JHR/2007-141 and the work order was issued on 05.01.2008. This work was assigned vide job no.06/JHR/2007-141 and the work order was issued on 05.01.2008. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of preparation of estimate of work, the price of bitumen to be used for the work was around Rs. 24,000/- per metric tonne but by the time the work order was issued, the price had gone up to Rs. 33,500/- per metric tonne. It appears that the petitioner had taken steps for revision of estimate of work in the light of the above and the matter was referred to the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Union of India for sanction of revision of the estimate of work. 6. In the mean time, the petitioner entered into the agreement dated 07.03.2008 as contained in Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit, and in view of the aforesaid assurance, the enhanced rate of bitumen was not included in the agreement itself. Under such circumstances, the petitioner executed the work and in spite of repeated request the petitioner was not granted the amount relating to the supply of bitumen at the enhanced rate. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 7. This Court finds that the proposal for the revised estimate for incorporating price rise of bitumen was sent to the Ministry of Shipping, Road, Transport & Highway, Government of India, New Delhi for approval but the same was returned un-approved stating that the difference of cost of bitumen due to price rise is not payable to the contractor and it cannot be allowed. 8. A counter-affidavit has also been filed by Union of India wherein it has been stated at para 5, that the revised estimate incorporating price rise of bitumen was submitted by the State which was returned unapproved as there was no such provisions in the contract clause. It has also been submitted that the work was awarded on competitive bidding and the petitioner was free to quote any rate on approved bill of quantity. In connection with the promise made by respondent no. 3 to pay the revised rate of bitumen, it was stated that, the decision is concerned with the State Government, and as such the same can be answered by the State Government. 9. In connection with the promise made by respondent no. 3 to pay the revised rate of bitumen, it was stated that, the decision is concerned with the State Government, and as such the same can be answered by the State Government. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner entered into agreement having no such clause for revision of estimate of work and at the time of agreement also the petitioner was conscious of the fact that the proposed revision of rate of bitumen was subject to approval by the Ministry at the union of India level. Since, the Ministry at the level of Union of India has admittedly rejected such claim by the petitioner as is apparent from the counteraffidavit filed by the Union of India as well as counter-affidavit filed by the State, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. This Court does not find any merit in the claim made by the petitioner, and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.