IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2007 / 17TH ASWINA 1929 W.A. No. 2344 of 2007 --------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23511/2003 Dated 18/08/2006 ) APPELLANT/PETITTIONER IN THE W.P.(C) ------------------------------------------------------------ P.M.MICHAEL, AGED 42, S/O. ABRAHAM PORIMATTATHIL, PANAMKUTTY, P.O.ADIMALY. BY ADV. SRI.K.A. SREEJITH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE W.P.(C): ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ADIMALY BLOCK DEVELOPMENT, ADIMALY. 4 THE PROJECT OFFICER, DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,(DRDA) PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI M.P. SREEKRISHNAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... W.A. No. 2344 OF 2007 ................................................................................... Dated this the 9th October , 2007 J U D G M E N T H.L. Dattu, C.J.: The respondents are the 'other authorities' as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 2. The claim of the petitioner is that payment of certain amounts is due to him by the respondents. The claim is seriously disputed by the respondents. In a situation like this, in our opinion, a writ is not a remedy for the petitioner. On that sole ground itself, the learned single Judge ought to have rejected the Writ Petition. However, the learned single Judge, after tracing the history of the case, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs whatsoever. 3. We have carefully perused the orders passed by the learned single Judge and we are of the firm opinion that the learned single Judge has not committed any error whatsoever which would call for our interference. In that view of the matter, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk