IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5295 of 2009(F) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SUNIL KUMAR.S, DEVIKRIPA, VALLIKKODE.PO, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY. 3. DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER,PATHANAMTHITTA. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO.5383/09,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NOs. 5295 & 5383 OF 2009 ======================= Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P9 orders are under challenge. 2. Petitioners had taken in auction right to collect sand from the recognized kadavus of Kozhencherry Taluk for the period from 15/10/2008 to 31/10/2008. According to the petitioners, for reasons beyond their control, sand could not be collected, and therefore, they made applications praying either to extend the contract period or refund the amount deposited. That was directed to be considered by this Court in Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners. Accordingly, the representations were considered and by Ext.P9 orders passed by the District Collector on 22/12/2008, the claims were rejected. It is challenging these orders and praying for direction to refund the amount, the writ petitions have been filed. 3. Admittedly, the relationship between the parties is contractual. The contract also specified the period. The case of the petitioners is that for reasons which are attributable to the workers over whom they have no control, they could not collect sand and therefore this is a case of frustration of contract and hence, the amount should be refunded. WPC 5295 & 5383/09 :2 : 4. On the other hand, referring to the contractual provisions which dis entitles the petitioners to claim either extension of time or refund of amount, the District Collector has rejected the claim raised by the petitioners. Evidently, therefore, the issue that is canvassed by the petitioners is one of frustration of contract and what is relied on by both parties is the contract that is entered into between them. 5. In my view, the adjudication of the claim raised by the petitioners involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in a writ petition. Therefore, the remedy available to the petitioners is to approach the Civil Court. Writ petitions are dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp