IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18314 of 2011(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- P.SYAM, PWD CONTRACTOR, MURUKALAYAM, PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SMT.P.A.RINUSA SMT.ANNIE JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, ROADS AND BRIDGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS AND BRIDGES, SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, COLLECTORATE BUILDING, ALAPPUZHA-688001. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, @SUB DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA-688001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 18314/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 16/11/2010. P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE ESTEEM DEVELOPERS (P) LIMITED. P3: COPY COF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER REQUESTING FOR EXTENSION OF TIME DATED 20/05/2011. P3(a):COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION GIVEN IN THE FORMAT DATED 01/06/2011. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 04/04/2011. P5: COPY OF THE TERMINATION LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15/06/2011. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 27/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.18314 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is a contract entered between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent for widening the Iron Bridge at Alappuzha. Though, according to the petitioner he commenced the work, for reasons which are beyond his control the work could not be completed. In the meanwhile, he was served with Ext.P5 letter, terminating the contract. 2. The petitioner made Ext.P6 representation to the 1st respondent seeking extension of the contract period for completing the work. This application is pending. 3. In this writ petition, though the petitioner is seeking to quash Ext.P5, learned counsel for the petitioner confines the prayer for consideration of Ext.P6. Therefore, without expressing anything on merits of the contentions, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 1st respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P6. W.P(C) No.18314 of 2011 2 4. The 1st respondent shall do it as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.18314 of 2011 3