IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25160 of 2011(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.S.SUMITH, S/O.SURENDRAN, AGED 29 YEARS, MANAKKAKUDIYIL HOUSE, OOORAMANA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 730. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI (VENNELA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, REP. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD ROADS AND BRIDGES, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA.PIN-682 001 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MAYA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.25160/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.6.2011. EXT.P1(a) POSTAL RECEIPT. EXT.P1(b) POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT EXT.P2 REPLY LETTE RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.6.2011 FROM 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 COPY OF LETTER RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.7.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25160 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was awarded contract for collecting toll from the New Cochin Bridge at Cheruthuruthy for the period from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012, at a license fee of more than 38 lakhs. According to the petitioners subsequently on account of the opening of a parallel bridge and for other reasons collection of toll was substantially reduced as a result of which huge loss was caused. For that reason he made Ext.P1 application to the 2nd respondent requesting for conducting a fresh survey and to refix the toll amount on that basis. By Ext.P2 reply he was informed that the representations will be considered and a decision will be taken and intimated. It is stated that no decision was communicated and by Ext.P3 he was informed that recovery steps will be taken. It is at this stage the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. W.P.(C) No. 25160 OF 2011 :2 : 2. Though the relationship between the parties is purely contractual since by Ext.P3 the 2nd respondent himself has promised to consider Ext.P1, necessarily the said promise has to be honoured. 3. Therefore I dispose of the writ petition directing that the 2nd respondent should consider Ext.P1 as expeditiously as possible and legal orders shall be given to the petitioner at any rate within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. 4. It is made clear that this court has not expressed anything on merits and it is entirely for the respondent to consider the same. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the concerned authority for compliance. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge