IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17679 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNIL P.B. S/O.LATE E.BALANANDAN, AGED 45 YEARS, PONNAMKULATH HOUSE, N.KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 683 104. BY ADV. SRI.V.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, 2. CORPORATION ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, KOCHI-11. 3. STATE OF KERALA - REP.BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 17679 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was awarded a contract by the first respondent. She filed the writ petition contending that his contract is being illegally terminated and alternate arrangements are being made, though the reason is only personal vengeance against the petitioner, whose father was a trade union leader. The matter gained the attention of this court because it related to the protection of compound wall of the Brahmapuram Waste Plant. With materials on record, it is abundantly clear that issue is essentially one of the allegations and counter allegations regarding the due discharge and performance or breach of contract and revision of rates, as also cancellation of contract and rearrangement at risk and cost. It also appears that there is bargain between the parties as of now, as to whether petitioner could be granted any escalation of rates. These are not matters which should gain the attention of the writ court and adjudication of such issues, if at all, could only be before the appropriate civil Wpc 17679/2009 2 court. Hence, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the Corporation for any negotiated settlement and without prejudice to the Corporation going ahead with its re-allotment, this writ petition is dismissed. It is also clarified that this judgment would not stand in the way of the parties raising all contentions before the appropriate court or another authority. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/14/8