IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19610 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. COCHIN RUBBERS, OPPOSITE VENNALA CO-OPERATIVE BANK, VENNALA P.O., COCHIN-28, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER PEEYUS KURUVILA. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD. AT ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KOTTAYAM, PIN-684 004. R1 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.19610 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The second respondent is a Government Company. The petitioner is a contractor, it having entered into an agreement with the second respondent for slaughter tapping rubber trees. For some or the other reason, an earlier round of writ petition was filed before this Court in relation to that non-statutory contractual relationship. The parties ultimately placed a set of terms settling their disputes. This Court incorporated those terms in Ext.P7 judgment. Even at that time, this Court had been very cautious and had clearly stated that this Court will not be justified in issuing any direction in any manner altering the terms of the agreement. This is because, fundamentally, it is not within the domain of the writ court to entertain actions relating to non-statutory contracts, even by Government Companies, except in exceptional situations which are recognised by precedents governing that field. Whatever that be, the issues which are raised now are against those referable exclusively to WPC.19610/08 Page numbers the said non-statutory contract and I do not deem it necessary at all to entertain this writ petition to adjudicate any such issue. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there are matters pending between the parties before the civil court and in view of Ext.P7, it appears that the civil court takes the view that the settlement between the parties, as recorded by this Court, cannot be the subject of adjudication before that court. I do not express anything on this, since that is also a matter which is away from the scope of judicial review and it is not for this Court to extend any advice regarding the litigations pending between the parties. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to other remedies, if any, in accordance with law. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.