IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32482 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- N.S.PRAMOD, GOVT, CONTRACTOR, SANTHI BHAVAN, KOTTAPPURAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, KALADA IRRIGATION PROJECT, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT, RIGHT BANK CIRCLE, KOTTARAKKARA. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT, LEFT BANK DIVISION NO.V.KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32482 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner was awarded a contract for construction of the Kottappuram Minor Distributory from Ch.0/00 M to 1200 M and an agreement was executed in this behalf on 21.5.2004. One Mr.Abbaskutty, was awarded the work Ch.1200 M to 2570 M. Petitioner refers to the fact that for the construction of the distributory, it was necessary to cut open a pathway, which was vested in the Public Works Department, Municipality and the Panchayat. It is alleged that there was delay in handing over the site to the public and this resulted in the delay in execution of the work which was awarded to the petitioner and Abbaskutty. It is stated that later, the agreement with Mr.Abbaskutty was terminated as per Ext.P24, but without the risk and cost of the contractor. Petitioner's contract was also terminated as per Ext.P7, but this was at the risk and cost of the petitioner. It is this, which has been essentially challenged in this writ petition. W.P.(C).NO.32482/08 :: 2 :: 2. I am not inclined to consider the contentions of the petitioner in this writ petition for more than one reason. Firstly, there is a comprehensive representation submitted by the petitioner claiming what he calls 'as a parity' with Abbaskutty. Ext.P30 is pending before the Chief Engineer. 3. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P30 and if it is found that a decision is required at the hands of the Government, it may be forwarded to the Government within one month from the date of receipt of a a copy of this judgment. 4. If so, the Government shall take a decision thereon within two months from the date of receipt of the report from the 2nd respondent. Petitioner's contention, that he is entitled to a parity of treatment with Mr.Abbaskutty, made in this regard under Ext.P24 may also be considered. A decision may be taken on Ext.P30 representation. If the Chief Engineer feels that he is entitled to take a decision on Ext.P30, he shall do so within three months from the date of W.P.(C).NO.32482/08 :: 3 :: receipt of a copy of this judgment. The other contentions raised by the petitioner are left open. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge