IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 18053 of 2007(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.JEEVAN DIESELS AND ELECTRICALS LTD., R.S.NO.55/1,CUDALLORE MAIN ROAD, PALLILYAR KUPPAM, MANAPET P.O., PONDICHERY, PIN-607 402, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, LALU O.R. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.SURESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF REVENUE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E), C.P.W.D., KOCHI CENTRAL ELECTRICAL DIVISION, A BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR,KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 037. 4. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY, PALARIVATTOM-682025. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADDL.CGSC SHRI.TEKCHAND, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 29909 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No. 18053/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE GENERAL INFORMATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED NIL. P2 : COPY OF THE MINUTES OF AN INSPECTION HELD ON 01/02/2007 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3 : COPY OF THE 'D' FORM ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 08/03/2007. P4 : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11/04/2007. P5 : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07/05/2007. P6 : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17/05/2007. P7 : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25/05/2007. P8 : COPY OF THE FAX MESSAGE ISSUED BY THE NAVAL SHIP REPAIR YARD, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI – 4 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 02/05/2007. P9(a) : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER NO.23(29)KCED/2007/1333 DATED 28/05/2007. P9(b): COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.23(31)(2)/KCED/2007/1334 DATED 28/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P9(c): COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.23(70)/KCED/2007/1335 DATED 28/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P10(a) : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.51(4)/KCED/2007/1387 DATED 31/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P10(b) : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.51(4)/KCED/2007/1386 DATED 31/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P10(c) : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.51(4)/KCED/2007/1388 DATED 31/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P11(a) : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT NO.54(2)/ KCED/2007/1362 DATED 29/05/2007 TO THE PETITIONER. P11(b) : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.54(2)/KCED/2007/1363 DATED 29/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P11(c) : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.54(2)/KCED/2007/1364 DATED 29/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P12 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.23(70)/KCED/2007/3159 DATED 07/12/2006 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KCED, CPWD, KOCHI - 37 TO THE PETITIONER. WP(C) No. 18053/2007 P13 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1237/JDEL/2006-07/3159 DATED 26/12/2006 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TOTHE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KCED, CPWD, KOCHI – 37. P14 : COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.50/2006 DATED 18/12/2006 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM. P15 : COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.51/06 DATED 19/12/2006 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM. P16 : COPY OF THE PAGE NO.1077 OF FINANCE BILL IMPOSING CESS DATED NIL. P17 : COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.23/07 DATED 30/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM. P18 : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KCED, CPWD, KOCHI – 37 DATED 07/05/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a) : COPY OF LETTER NO.PD/2006-07 DATED 28/03/2007 OF SMT.V.G.UMADEVI, COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY AT PALARIVATTOM. R3(b) : COPY OF LETTER NO.50/2006 DATED 18/12/2006 OF COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM. R3(c) : COPY OF LETTER NO.54(2)/KCED/2007/1137 DATED 30/04/2007 OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E), KCED, CPWD, KOCHI – 37. R3(d) : COPY OF LETTER NO.23(303)/BCEC/557(E) OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER(E), BCEC, CPWD, BANGALORE DATED 17/05/2007. R3(e) : COPY OF LETTER NO.23(328)/BCEC/577(E) OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER(E), BCEC, CPWD, BANGALORE DATED 23/05/2007. R3(f) :COPY OF LETTER NO.23(303)/BCEC/575(E) OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (E), BCEC, CPWD, BANGALORE DATED 23/05/2007. R3(g) : COPY OF LETTER NO.23(29)/KCED/2007/1161 DATED 01/05/07 OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E), KCED, CPWD, KOCHI – 37. R3(h) : COPY OF LETTER NO.23(31)/KCED/2007/1162 DATED 01/05/07 OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E), KCED, CPWD, KOCHI – 37. R3(i) : COPY OF LETTER NO.23(70)/KCED/2007/1163 DATED 01/05/07 OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E), KCED, CPWD, KOCHI – 37. R3(j) :COPIES OF RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE PETITIONER. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos. 18053 & 29909 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was awarded contract for supply of generator by the Central PWD. According to the petitioner, timely supply could not be effected for failure of the purchaser to issue the declaration in the place of Form D prescribed under the CST Act. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that after petitioner committed breach of contract, work is awarded to respondents 4 & 5 after canceling contract given to petitioner. Therefore, there is no scope for this Court to direct the respondents to issue any form to the petitioner in the place of form D. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no breach of contract by the petitioner and the cancellation of contract is illegal. In any case, there is no scope for this Court considering the dispute between the parties, because contract provides for settlement of dispute through arbitration proceedings. These writ petitions are, accordingly, closed leaving freedom to the petitioner to settle the dispute through arbitration proceedings. However, I make it clear that the arbitration proceedings will not stand in the way of new contractors executing the work awarded to them. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg