IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 2077 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16656/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION --------------------------------------------- N.V.BABY, AGED 58, S/O.SIMON VARGHESE, PERICKAMATTATHIL HOUSE, EZHAKKERANAD (S) P.O., PUTHENCURZ (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION ----------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.CIRCLE, MUVATTUPUZHA PO, PIN 686661. 3. IDUKKI DISTRICT PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, IDUKKI P.O., PIN 685603. ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY FOR R3 SMT.N.SANTHA FOR R3 SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO FOR R3 SRI.S.A.ANAND FOR R3 SRI.M.DINESH, SC, KWA FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 2077 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic,J The appellant filed the Writ Petition, which was disposed of by judgment dated 29.7.2010. The facts of the case are that the appellant entered into a contract with respondents 1 and 2 for execution of certain works. According to the appellant, certain amounts are due from respondents 1 and 2. The amounts were not paid and therefore, the Writ Petition was filed. In the Writ Petition, apart from a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to pay the amount that was due to the appellant, the appellant also sought for a direction requiring the third respondent to deposit the amount due from it to the aforesaid respondents. 2. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge directed that respondents 1 and 2 shall pay the amount due to the appellant, but, however, declined the prayer sought in so far as the third respondent is concerned. It is aggrieved by the said judgment that the appeal is filed. WA.2077/10 2 Admittedly, the contract executed by the appellant was with respondents 1 and 2 and as per the contract the amount due to the appellant is payable by respondents 1 and 2. It is on this basis that respondents 1 and 2 have been ordered to pay the dues of the appellant. Even if there is a contract between respondents 1 and 2 on the one side and the third respondent on the other, the appellant, being a stranger to the said contract, cannot seek any direction for the performance of the said contract. Therefore, we find that the learned Single Judge rightly rejected the prayer so far as the third respondent is concerned. We do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal. The Writ Appeal is, therefore dismissed. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vgs