IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10738 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.P.CHANDRADASAN, S/O.APPOOTTY, AGED 65, RESIDING AT VISWAHINDU BHAVAN, CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, N.I.T.CAMPUS, CALICUT, PIN-673601. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLGY, N.I.T.CAMPUS, CALICUT, PIN-673601. ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.10738/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DT 21.7.008 OF PETIITONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 9/7/2010, EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION DT 20.7.2010. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DT 30.7.2010. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DT 31.8.2010. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF the INTIMATION DT 11.10.2010. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE INTIMATION DT 6.1.11. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.ENGG/CONSTN-CENTRAL LIBRARY/2010-11 DT 14.1.2011 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 21.1.11 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 29.1.11 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.3.11 IN WPC NO.4039/11 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT 16.3.11 AND 26.3.2011. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT 26.3.2011. EXTS. OF R1 EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT 1.12.2008 RENDERED IN WPC NO.35181 OF 2008 EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BE COURT DT 16.7.09 RENDERED IN WPC NO.4154 OF 2009. EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.4039 OF 2011 WITH EXHIBITS THEREIN. EXT.R1(d): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 9.3.2010 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(e): TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT 4.3.11 RENDERED IN WPC NO.4039 OF 2011. //TRUE COPY// Rp P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10738 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in the writ petition reads as follows;- “(i) issue a writ of mandamus order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to supply/deliver the plan and architectural design and necessary details for the execution of finishing work covered as per Exts.P2 and P6, P11 and P13 forthwith to the petitioner for the construction of Central Library at Calicut, in the light of Ext.P12.” 2. Respondents had awarded to the petitioner a contract for the construction of a Central Library building. On an earlier occasion, seeking extension of time for completion of the work, petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 4039/11. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P11 judgment dated 4/3/2011. In the said judgment, inspite of the fact that the contentions raised by the respondents were found to be acceptable, still indulgence was shown by this Court and on that basis, extension of time by four months from 28/2/11 was ordered to be given as a last chance in order to enable the petitioner to complete the work. In the concluding portion, dealing with the request of the petitioner for direction for the supply of documents enabling him to execute the work, this Court held as follows:- WPC No. 10738/11 :2 : “5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was some deviation from the original design and therefore the respondents should be directed to make available plan and architectural design in order to enable him to complete the finishing work. Counsel for the respondents points out that all necessary documents have already been handed over to the petitioner and therefore, according to her, there is no substance in the grievance. Be that as it may, if any such documents are necessary, it is open to the petitioner to approach the respondents, in which event, the respondents will make available such of those documents which are necessary for the petitioner to complete the work as agreed between the parties”. 3. Therefore, if at all any document is to be obtained, sufficient directions have already been issued by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. It is despite the above that the present writ petition has been filed with the prayer for supply of documents. In my view, the grievance is already taken care of in Ext.P11 judgment, and if at all there is any complaint, successive writ petition is not the remedy available to the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp