ORDER : 1. Through this writ petition, the writ petitioner sought to challenge the action of the respondents in not escalating/adjusting the price of steel, cement, labour and other materials as per G.O.Rt.No.111, T, R&B Department, dated 28.02.2024, G.O.Ms.No.94, T, R&B Department, dated 16.04.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.35, T, R&B Department, dated 30.01.2009 for the work covered under L.S. Agreement C.R.No.61/2020-21 entered into between the petitioner and respondent no.3, dated 23.12.2020. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was the successful bidder of the e-procurement Tender Notice no.38/T.O/2020-21, dated 09.09.2020 called for the purpose of construction of Court halls for VI Additional District & Sessions Judge & Senior Civil Judges Court, Markapur and accordingly an agreement was entered into by the petitioner with respondent no.3 on 23.12.2020, as per which the work has to be completed within 15 months i.e. by 22.03.2022. Though the work was technically sanctioned in the year 2019, for various reasons, the petitioner was allotted land in the month of August, 2023 and by the time the petitioner started to execute the work, there was a huge change in prices that escalated more than the estimated contract value. The petitioner made representations dated 17.06.2022 and 04.08.2022 to respondent no.3 for price escalation and unless the price is escalated/ adjusted, the petitioner would sustain huge loss. As per the recommendation of committee of Chief Engineers, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.111, dated 28.02.2024 mentioning therein that price escalation/ adjustment is permitted for the work executed during the period from 02.11.2020 to 31.03.2023. Whereas the petitioner could only execute the work on 06.08.2023, since there was inordinate delay in allocation of land and laying of foundation stone. Unless price escalation in terms of the G.Os. referred to supra is granted, it would be highly impossible for him to proceed with the work. Despite repeated requests dated 04.08.2022 and 05.04.2024 there was no positive response from the respondents. Hence, prayed to direct the respondents to escalate the price for the subject work. 3. Heard Sri K.Varun Shyam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings and Ms. S.Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General. 4. Hence, prayed to direct the respondents to escalate the price for the subject work. 3. Heard Sri K.Varun Shyam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings and Ms. S.Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General. 4. Sri K.Varun Shyam Kumar, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the delay in executing the work is solely attributable to respondent no.6 since the petitioner was not permitted to execute the work until foundation stone is laid in the month of August,2023 in relation to the work which was technically sanctioned in the year 2019 and thus there was huge escalation of prices as on the date of execution of the work on 06.08.2023 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get price escalation/adjustment in terms of the Government Orders without reference to the time line fixed therein or else the petitioner would be put to suffer huge financial loss for no fault of him and for the delay which is solely attributable to respondent no.6. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 5. Whereas the learned counsel for respondents would contend that price escalation/adjustment will be applicable only when the works were executed within the time limit stipulated and if the subject works meet all other specifications envisaged in the Government Orders referred to by the petitioner, but as the subject works were executed by the petitioner beyond the time limit mentioned in G.O.Rt.No.111, dated 28.02.2024, the authorities had rightly declined to extent the benefit of price escalation/adjustment to the subject works. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. This Court, vide orders dated 02.05.2024 & 23.12.2024 directed respondent no.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders. Pursuantly, the Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings filed compliance memo along with the letter addressed by the Superintending Engineer, (R&B) Circle, Ongole to the writ petitioner. The said compliance memo states that in compliance of orders passed by this Court on 02.05.2024, the Superintending Engineer considered the representation of the petitioner and passed speaking order vide letter enclosed to the said compliance memo. 8. The said compliance memo states that in compliance of orders passed by this Court on 02.05.2024, the Superintending Engineer considered the representation of the petitioner and passed speaking order vide letter enclosed to the said compliance memo. 8. The letter enclosed to the said compliance report is to the effect that the L.S. Agreement entered into by the petitioner with respondent no.3 does not contain any price adjustment condition, however on sympathetic view his request was brought to the notice of Chief Engineer (R&B) Buildings and ultimately the Government held that price adjustment condition is not applicable to the subject work and pursuantly the request of the petitioner to revise the estimate with 2023-24 SSR on sympathetic grounds is rejected specifically mentioning therein that the work must be executed as per the terms and conditions of the agreement which was concluded by the petitioner vide L.S. Agreement No.61/2020-21, dated 23.12.2020. 9. G.O.Rt.No.111, Transport, Roads & Buildings (B) Department, dated28.02.2024 relied on by the petitioner would indicate that the Committee of Chief Engineers of R&B examined the applicability of price escalation clause in the projects of Judicial Building Works as per G.O.Ms.No.94, T,R&B Department, dated 16.04.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.35, T,R&B Department, 30.01.2009 and further as to whether the delay was caused due to covid pandemic or not, and recommended to consider the price escalation/ adjustment for the work executed during Covid i.e. from 02.11.2020 to31.03.2023. 10. In the instant case, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that the work covered under the writ petition was executed on 06.08.2023 after laying of foundation stone. Hence, it is discernible that the subject work was executed not within the period specified in G.O.Rt.No.111; dated 28.02.2024 relied on by the petitioner but nearly five (05) months thereafter. It is also not in dispute that there is no price adjustment condition in the L.S. Agreement entered into by the petitioner with respondent no.3. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit of price escalation/ adjustment as per G.O.Ms.No.94, T,R&B Department, dated 16.04.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.35, T,R&B Department, 30.01.2009. The Superintending Engineer had also reached to the same conclusion in the speaking order filed along with the compliance memo. 11. The writ petition being bereft of merits is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.