IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5814 OF 2008(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.K.SHIBU, KUZHITHOTTIYIL HOUSE, KALOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR. S.C. SRI. U.K. RAMAKRISHNAN. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. R. LAKSHMINARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & V. K. MOHANAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) NO. 5814 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioner was an auction purchaser for cutting and removing of certain trees belonging to Guruvayur Devaswom. Pursuant to the order issued, it is alleged that the petitioner did not cut and remove the trees within the time stipulated and therefore, the Devaswom had made their own arrangements. Petitioner contends that as per the tender conditions, he is entitled for fifteen days whereas he was granted only two days. Though he requested for further time, no reply was forthcoming and subsequently, he sub-contracted the work and forty trees were cut and removed by the sub contractor. It was at that time, that the Devaswom Board started uprooting the trees by themselves. It is contended that the Board has violated the agreement conditions. 2. In the nature of the allegations, we find that this is a matter which has to be adjudicated by a civil court since it involves consideration of evidence - both oral and documentary so as to find out as to whether there is violation of the conditions and if so, which parties have violated the same WP(C)5814/2008 :2: and in case it is found that it is the Board who violated the conditions of the agreement, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, etc. Hence we relegate the petitioner to approach the civil court. The writ petition is dismissed declining jurisdiction in the above facts and circumstances. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) V. K. MOHANAN, (JUDGE) knc/-