IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12098 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- TAMA JAWAHAR, S/O. TADIAN AHMED SHAH, AGED 42 YEARS, PROPRIETOR SHANFACO, 4/28B, AMBAI ROAD, THENKASSY - 627 811, TAMILNADU, REP. BY HIS P/A. HOLDER, R.N.L.AYYAPPAN, AGED 41, S/O. LAKSHMANASAMI, 617,VELLALORE ROAD, SINGHAI NAGAR COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU - 641 005. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TRIVANDRUM RUBBER WORKS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHAKAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN ROR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 12098 OF 2008 M ==================== Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the successful bidder in a tender cum auction conducted by the 2nd respondent to demolish, dismantle and remove the buildings and debris in the property belonging to the 2nd respondent. 2. Petitioner being the successful bidder entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent and wanted to transport the materials in pursuance to the contract. However, the petitioner submits that since no document evidencing that the materials are being removed from the premises of the 2nd respondent authorizedly is issued by the 2nd respondent, he is being obstructed not only by Government officials including police, but also by the anti social elements who want to prevent him from executing the contract. According to the petitioner, he has made repeated requests to the 2nd respondent, but then all those requests have fallen on deaf years and as a result he is not in a position to perform the contract. 3. I heard the standing counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the 2nd respondent on notice. According to the standing counsel, WPC 12098/08 :2 : the contract did not provide for issuing any document as sought for by the petitioner and that it was therefore that they have not issued the documents responding to the requests made by the petitioner. 4. Irrespective of whether there is a specific clause to the effect that the respondents can issue a document legitimizing the transport of the materials in pursuance to the contract, in my view, fairness requires that necessary documents should be issued to the petitioner. In the absence of any document, if difficulty is caused to the petitioner for transporting the materials, even in the absence of an enabling provision in the agreement, the respondents should have heeded to the petitioner's request so that the materials could be transported without any obstruction from either the Government officials or others. 5. In view of this, I dispose of this writ petition directing that as and when petitioner removes the materials from the premises of the 2nd respondent in pursuance to the contract entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, it will be open to the petitioner to make suitable request to the 2nd respondent for issuing an exit pass or a certificate, to legitimize the transport of the materials. On receipt of such requests the respondents shall consider the same and issue necessary WPC 12098/08 :3 : document either in the form of an exit pass or a certificate. Necessarily, such a document should include the details of the materials transported as also the number of the vehicle in which the goods are transported. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp