IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21225 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRAKASH A.K., RAILWAY CONTRACTOR, PRAKASH BUNGALOW, THALASSERY - 1. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. (FACT) UDYOGAMANDAL, ALUVA - 683 501 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGER (MAINTENANCE (CIVIL), M/S.FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, ALUVA - 683 501. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 & 2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 & 2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 & 2 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R1 & 2 SRI.V.J.ANAND FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 21225 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 6th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to have executed certain works on behalf of the respondents satisfactorily. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that although the work has been completed in the year 2006, no amount is paid. The petitioner therefore seeks the following relief: “To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to release the amounts for the contractual work carried out and completed by the petitioner in respect of the maintenance and repair of Railways sings with 18% interest and security deposit and EMD within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents disputing the liability of the respondents to pay the same. According to them, the petitioner committed breach of contract, as a result of which the contract has been terminated. Therefore, according to them, no amounts are payable by the respondents to the petitioner. 3. In view of the disputes regarding the liability, I am not inclined to go into the same since resolving of the same would require evidence, which can be adduced only in a suit. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a suit on the same cause of action, this writ petition is dismissed, but, without going into the merits of the rival contentions of the parties. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/