IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 26383 of 2009(P) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- V.V.MUSTAFA, S/O.ABDULLA, VAYALIL PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, PAYYAVOOR P.O., PAYYAVOOR AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI MR.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, RAJAPURAM ESTATE, THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., PANATHUR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., KOTTAYAM-4, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA, MR.TERRY V.JAMES, MR.BINU MATHEW. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.26383/2009-P ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had quoted an amount of Rs.2,71,113/- in the auction for collection and removal of cashew nuts from the estate of the second respondent in Chethukayam in Rajapuram Estate in Kasargode District. After the acceptance of the bid, he had deposited Rs.27,111/- and Rs.20,000/- towards security deposit which are evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 respectively. He has also remitted the auction amount and the cashew nuts have also been collected. 2. What is projected in the writ petition is the refusal of the respondents to return the security deposit of Rs.47,111/-. The petitioner was served with Ext.P4 notice demanding an amount of Rs.30,000/- by the second respondent which represents the value of cashew nuts carried away by one Siddique, who is alleged to be an employee of the petitioner. Disputing the liability of the petitioner in this regard, he served Ext.P5 lawyer notice on the second respondent. Since no further action has been taken, this writ petition has been filed. 3. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is contended that the issue is a pure commercial transaction involving execution of a contract W.P.(C). No.26383/2009 -:2:- and, therefore, the petitioner will have to approach the Civil Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute herein does not involve interpretation of any terms of a contract and what is involved is only return of the security deposit which was remitted by the petitioner at the time of execution of the agreement. It is also submitted that what is stated in Ext.P4 does not represent the correct facts and the person mentioned therein is not an employee of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no scope for adjudication in a Civil Court and, therefore, this Court may issue a direction to the respondents to release the security deposit of Rs.47,111/- which is now withheld. 5. There is a claim by the second respondent against the petitioner as is evident from Ext.P1. True that the petitioner disputes the liability in the matter. By disputing his liability, the petitioner has served Ext.P5 lawyer notice also. The question is whether the second respondent is well within their rights to demand an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the petitioner. All these are matters which require evidence, especially, in the light of the fact that the petitioner is disputing the allegation in W.P.(C). No.26383/2009 -:3:- Ext.P4 in toto. Therefore, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of the claim for return of security deposit. Leaving open the said remedy, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms