IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 20722 of 2007(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- A.C.HARIDAS, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, HAPPY VILLA, OPP. CEPZ, KAKKANAD, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.GOVIND K.BHARATHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.PRABIN BABU RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, PRAJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 014. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, CHENGANNUR. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, IHRDE SRI.S.SUJIN, SC, IHRD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 20722/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT DATED 4.3.05. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.05. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENTTO THE PETITIONER DATED 6.12.05. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 2.2.06. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THELETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.1.06. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTSDATED 20.3.06. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.3.06. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.3.06. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.4.06. EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.4.06. EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11.5.06. EXT.P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 8.6.06. EXT.P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.9.06. EXT.P14 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.9.06. EXT.P15 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE MANAGE, FEDERAL BANK, PACHALAM DATED 28.9.06. EXT.P16 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 10.10.06. WPC : 20722/07 EXT.P17 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.12.06. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.4.05. EXT.R1(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.6.99. EXT.R1(C) : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.19729/J/01/EDN. DATED 17.4.05. EXT.R1(D) : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CMA NO.37/2000 DATED 7.1.05. EXT.R1(E) : TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT DATED 04.03.05. EXT.R1(F) : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.2.06. EXT.R1(G) : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.8.06. EXT.R1(H) : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.5.06. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 20722 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner undertook a contract of construction of a building for the College of Engineering, Chengannoor pursuant to the award of work given to him by the 1st respondent. Petitioner did not complete the work in time. Time for completion of work was extended by 12 months. Still the petitioner was not able to complete the work. Therefore, by Ext.P14 the 1st respondent terminated the contract on the ground that the petitioner committed breach of contract. Petitioner challenges Ext.P14 and seeks the following reliefs: “i. call for the records leading to Ext.P14 and to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the same; ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to immediately consider the petitioner's objections in Exts.P2, P4, P6, P12, P16 & P17 and to hear the petitioner and approve the bills submitted by the petitioner forthwith and strictly in accordance with law; iii. Declare that the respondents have no manner of authority to terminate the contract of the petitioner without hearing and considering his objections.” 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the WPC :20722/07 -:2:- learned Government Pleader. 3. The question as to whether the petitioner has committed breach of contract and whether the reason for non-completion of work is attributable to the petitioner or the respondent are the disputed questions of fact, for resolving which, adducing of evidence is necessary, which cannot be ordinarily done in a writ petition. In any event, insofar as the petitioner's grievance is that respondents have committed breach of contract, the petitioner's remedy lies in filing a suit for damage for breach of contract. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this Writ Petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb