IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 10705 of 2007(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.G.PHINGSTON, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 47, ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS, MALAT HOUSE, KUMBALANGI P.O., KOCHI - 682 007. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA POLICE HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, STADIUM, PALAYAM, VIKHAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 2. FINANCE MANAGER, KERALA POLICE HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED, CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, STADIUM, PALAYAM, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 3. MANAGER, ALAHABAD BANK, M.G.ROAD BRANCH, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R1 SRI.K.THYAGARAJESWARAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 10705/07. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT. P2. COPY OF THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT. P3. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.29.7.06. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.29.9.06. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.12.3.07. P6. COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.24.3.07. P7. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.11.3.07. P8. COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.10705 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a contractor who undertook certain work on behalf of the 1st respondent Corporation. The petitioner claims to have executed the work properly and submitted his bill. However, the 1st respondent, by Ext.P7, sought to invoke the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner as security for proper execution of the work. It is at that time the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling the respondents not to encash the bank guarantee as requested in Exhibit P7. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P6 and the reply given to Exhibit P7 without further delay. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction by declaring that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount to the respondents 1 and 2, in respect of the contract works done by him in connection with LSQ at Vellikulangara and Rameswaram and extension of Women Police Station rest room at Vellikulangara. iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling the respondents 1 and 2 to settle the final bill by considering Exhibit P8 claim and to make the payment within a reasonable time in respect of the contrat work of LSQ Rameswaram.” 2. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the petitioner's final bill in respect of the work in question was considered and an amount of Rs.71,94,828/- has been paid to the petitioner and w.p.c.10705/07 2 the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner was also released to the petitioner in respect thereof. However, the petitioner now contends that that is in respect of Rameswaram contract and amounts due in respect Vellikulangara contract are still pending. According to the counsel for the 1st respondent, in respect of that work the petitioner has been asked to do certain rectification work, which he had failed to do and therefore, the 1st respondent is not in a postilion to pay the amount until the work is satisfactorily completed. Whatever that be, this is a situation which calls for an adjudication of the rights of the parties by taking evidence in so far as disputed questions of facts are involved, which cannot be done in a writ petition. Accordingly, leaving the petitioner to resort to other remedies available under law, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge