JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "For issuance of direction upon the respondents directing them to revise the estimate of the work relating to Improvement of Road, Quality Programme (hereinafter referred to I.R.Q.P.) of National Highway No. 33, between Km 319 to 329 and from km 333 to 333.75 kms 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." 4. The case of the petitioner as it appears from the record is that notice inviting tender was issued by the respondents in the year 2007 for construction of five roads out of which four roads were of National Highway No. 33 and one road was of National Highway No. 6. It appears that out of the five works for which tenders were invited the petitioner was allotted the work with regard to Kms. 319 to 329 and from Km 333 to 333.75 Km. of National Highway 33. Accordingly, vide order dated 05.01.2008 work order was issued. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that since the steep rise in the price of bitumen had rendered the rate unworkable, the petitioner vide his representation dated 10.01.2008 requested the Chief Engineer, (respondent no. 5) to revise the value of the work. Thereafter the petitioner on 19.01.2008 at the request of the respondents entered into an agreement for the execution of the work. The specific case of the petitioner is that it was promised by the respondent that his proposal for revision in the estimate would be sympathetically considered. Thereafter the Chief Engineer, Jharkhand, National Highway Wing in pursuance of the representations of the petitioner, vide his letter bearing no. 316 dated 01.03.2008 requested the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways to grant necessary sanction for the revision in the estimate of the work, but, the said letter of the Chief Engineer remain un-replied. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed a writ petition seeking aforesaid relief. 5. 316 dated 01.03.2008 requested the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways to grant necessary sanction for the revision in the estimate of the work, but, the said letter of the Chief Engineer remain un-replied. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed a writ petition seeking aforesaid relief. 5. Counsel for the respondents submits that counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Secretary (Road Transport and Highways), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India wherein they have declined to revise rate of bitumen and made specific statement at paragraph no. 5 of their counter affidavit that the same cannot be approved as there was no such provision of revision in the contract clause in the tender. The communication to this effect has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India and this letter is dated 2nd December 2008. The State of Jharkhand has also filed counter affidavit annexing the same letter and accordingly counsel for the respondent submits that the relief as prayed by the petitioner cannot be granted. 6. After hearing counsel for the respondents and after considering the materials on record this court finds that the petitioner had participated in the tender process pursuant to the notice inviting tender as back as in the year 2007 and had entered into an agreement dated 19.01.2008 and in the agreement there is no such clause regarding revision of value of work on account of enhancement in the rate of bitumen. Accordingly, the respondent have declined to grant revision of rate to the petitioner. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.