IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 18820 of 2006(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.A. ABOOBACKER, AGEAD 49 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KOYA, PROPRIETOR, NEW STAR, PUTHIYAPALAM, RESIDING AT YAHIYA NIVAS, CHEMBAKAMTHARA, PADAMANA, PUTHIYAPALAM, KOZHIKODE-2. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.VIJO JOSE RESPONDENTS : - --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA - CHAIRMAN, NEHRU TROPHY BOAT RACE INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA - SECRETARY, NEHRU TROPHY BOAT RACE INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE, R.D.O. OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, BOAT JETTY, ALAPPUZHA - CONVENOR, NEHRU TROPHY BOAT RACE INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, BOAT JETTY, ALAPPUZHA. R1, R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. KOCHUMOL KODUVATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18820 of 2006(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT P1 : COPY OF LETTER NO. NTBR-2 DATED 10.07.02 ISSUED BY THE 4th RESPONDENT. EXT P2 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 30.09.02 FROM THE 4th RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT P3 : COPY OF LETTER NO. NTBR-2002 DATED 25.10.02 SUBMITTED BY 4th RESPONDENT TO THE 3rd RESPONDENT. EXT P4 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 31.05.03 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. EXT P5 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 7.07.03 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. EXT P6 : COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS DATED 16.12.05. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/- S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18820 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was contractor, who was entrusted with the work of construction of temporary pandhal and pavilions, galleries, jetties, race track, temporary wooden tower, sheds and other structures in connection with the Nehru Trophy Boat Race for the year 2002 at Alappuzha. The date fixed for conducting the race was on 10.8.2002. But, in view of the boat tragedy at kumarakom which occurred a few days prior to the date fixed for the race, which consumed 30 lives, the boat race had to be postponed, which was conducted later only on 13.9.2002. According to the petitioner, on account of this postponement, he had to reconstruct the entire structure he had earlier made, as a consequence of which he had suffered a loss of Rs.1,75,000/-, out of which the petitioner was paid only Rs.10,000/-. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief: W.P.(C)No.18820/06 2 “i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to pay the balance compensation amount of Rs.1,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% fixed by the respondents to the petitioner in connection with the re-construction of temporary structures for the NTBR 2002.” According to the petitioner, the Executive Engineer and Convenor of the infrastructure committee of the Nehru Trophy Boat Race had recommended payment of Rs.1,75,000/- as additional amount to the petitioner and therefore it is proved that the petitioner had suffered that much amount as loss. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent, in which some loss is admitted on account of the postponement of the boat race. But, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the loss is not only to the petitioner, but to many persons, who were involved in the conducting of the boat race. But, they categorically deny the extent of the loss suffered by the petitioner. According to them, loss would come to only about Rs.10,000/-, which has been paid to the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The extent of damages depends on many facts, which have to be proved by evidence. In a writ petition, I cannot decide the W.P.(C)No.18820/06 3 extent of loss suffered by the petitioner, when the quantum is disputed. That can be done only in a forum where the petitioner and the respondents can adduce evidence for and against. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek his remedies before a forum, where he can adduce evidence, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.18820/06 4