IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 21390 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BHASKARAN SREEKANTAN, AGED 46, S/O.BHASKARAN, AVANI, MAMPAZHAKKARA, PERUMBAZHUTHOOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PERUMKADAVILA BLOCK PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BLOCK PANCHAYATH, PERUMKADAVILA. 2. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PERUMKADAVILA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER(KARAKONAM) R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.21390/07 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED NIL BY ASSOCIATION BEFORE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF DECISION OF KALLIKADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 15.6.04. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 15.11.06 FROM 2ND REPSONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF GOVT. ORDER G.O.(RT)NO.595/07/PWD DATED 26.4.2007. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED NIL. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION OF R1 DATED 2.6.07. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.21390 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was given a contract of making necessary constructions in connection with a mini water supply scheme. While he attributes that the failure to complete the construction was due to the non-availability of land at the appropriate time and that the land was made available only in 2006, the respondent Block Panchayat takes the stand that the petitioner had to complete the work in terms of the agreed rates and he cannot be granted any revision on rates as sought for. The refusal of the respondent Panchayat to concede to the petitioner's request for revision of rates and the consequential notification of the first respondent in Ext.P6 that the petitioner would be proceeded against in terms of the contract have led to the institution of this writ petition. WPC.21390/07 Page numbers The facts stated above clearly disclose that the lis essentially revolves on the terms of the contract, the enforcement thereon, its alleged breach or otherwise and any relief referable to enforcement of contract or remedies available for breach. These are not matters which can be resolved in the realm of writ jurisdiction. Having regard to the questions of facts and the fact that there is no interim orders in this case, I do not find any ground to grant any relief. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.25/8.