IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 27615 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SUN SHINE STEEL FURNITURE, MAYYANAD ROAD, KOTTIYAM-691571, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, T.M.SALIM MANZOOR. BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LAKSHADWEEP P.W.D. DIVISION, INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, W/ISLAND, KOCHI-3. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, (STORES), LAKSHADWEEP, PWD STORES, SUB DIVISION, INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, KOCHI-3. ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R2 & 3 SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27615 OF 2010 (B) ===================== Dated this the 1st day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that on the basis of a purchase order issued by the 2nd respondent, he supplied 113 Aluminium Camp Cots and one computer chair worth Rs.1,49,350/- vide Ext.P4 delivery note. His complaint is that despite having supplied the goods, he has not so far been paid the value thereof. 2. Standing counsel appearing for the respondents on instruction submit that supply of goods was accepted subject to verification. It is stated that on verification of the goods, the goods were found to be defective, and accordingly, the same were rejected. According to the counsel, it was therefore that payment was not released. It is stated that the representation made by the petitioner in 2008 (Ext.P5) was also not considered for the aforesaid reason. 3. Thus the issue to be decided before passing an order for payment of the amount claimed by the petitioner, is whether the goods supplied by the petitioner were acceptable and whether the goods were accepted by the respondents. Since this WPC No. 27615/10 :2 : factual issue is disputed by the respondents, this question cannot be decided in a writ petition. Therefore remedy of the petitioner is to file a suit and with that liberty, writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp