IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31628 of 2008(M) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: 1. VINOY VISWAM, S/O.VISHWANATHAN PILLAY, VETTOR MURI, MULAMOOTTIL MURUPPEL VEEDU, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. T.K.MATHEW KUTTY, THAKIDIMANNIL HOUSE, MANGARAM KONNI POST, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN: 689 691. 3. N.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR, NELLIMUTTIL VADAKATHIL HOUSE, ELAKOLLOR POST, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA PIN : 689 703. 4. K.S.THANKAPPAN NAIR, KAITHAMANNIL HOUSE, KUMBAZHA POST, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN: 689 653. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD RESPONDENTS: 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KONNI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, KONNITHAZHAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, PRAMADAIN VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. WP(C).No. 31628 of 2008 -2- 6. KONNI PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 7. MALAYALAPUZHA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 8. PRAMADAIN PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 31628 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 29th October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the successful bidders for the removal of sand from different kadavus in Kozhencherry Taluk. They had executed agreements with the Kadavu committee Tahasildar for the right to remove sand for the period from 15.10.2008 to 31.10.2008. According to them, due to unexpected heavy rain fall and consequent hostile inclement weather conditions, there were not in a position to remove the sand during the entirety of the period. They therefore sought extension of the period by Exhibit P7 representation. Obviously respondents cannot be faulted with for any disability caused to the petitioners due to Act of God. I do not find any merits in the request made by the petitioners In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma 2 3