IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31086 of 2011(I) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. ABDUL RASHEED, VALIYA VETTIL, CRESENT NAGAR, SRM ROAD , KOCHI- 682 018. 2. V.S MUHAMMED SHAHID, VALIYA VEETTIL, CRESENT NAGAR, SRM ROAD, KOCHI- 682 018. BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 2. SECRETARY, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KOCHI-20. 3. SECRETARY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1,2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, GCDA R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.M.J. RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 31086/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE TENDER CONDITIONS AND ADDITIONAL TENDER CONDITIONS WITH ANNEXURE. P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF GCDA DTD. 25.08.2011. P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY GCDA. P3(a): COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 07-09-2011 ISSUED BY GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. P3(b): COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 20-09-2011 TOWARDS ILLUMINATIONS IN THE COMPLEX. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY GCDA DTD. 22.09.2011. P5: COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS P6: COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY GCDA DTD. 03.11.2011. P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IS OS. NO.112/2009 OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 31086 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Tender notification was published by the respondent inviting tenders for exhibiting advertisement in the Greater Cochin Development Authority. It is seen that the petitioners were the successful tenderers and after completing all procedural formalities including remittance of the amount due, an agreement duly executed by the petitioners was submitted to the respondents for their signature. 2. According to the petitioners thereafter they submitted Ext.P5 request, for issuance of a copy of the signed agreement and also requesting that the period of the contract may be extended, on account of the delay that has occurred in the execution of the agreement. This request of the petitioner was considered and rejected by Ext.P6 communication of the GCDA. It is aggrieved by W.P.(C) No. 31086 OF 2011 :2 : Ext.P6 this writ petition has been filed. 3. I heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. As already seen the request of the petitioner is two fold. One is, that he should get a copy of the signed agreement between the parties and the other is that in view of the delay that has occurred, the contract period should be extended with the date of commencement from the date of handing over copy of the agreement. 5. As far as the first request of the petitioner is concerned that request has been turned down by Ext.P6 stating that the respondents have not received any written request for the said purpose. In Ext.P5 what the petitioners sought is to provide them a signed agreement. In other words what was sought was not a copy of the signed agreement. However fact remains that petitioners are parties to the agreement and he can commence the business only on the receipt of a copy of the agreement. In W.P.(C) No. 31086 OF 2011 :3 : such circumstances I see no reason why if the petitioners make an application for a copy of the signed agreement should not be given. Hence I leave it open to the petitioners to apply to the Secretary for the issuance of a copy of the signed agreement and it is directed that if such an application is received, the Secretary will issue the same without any delay in the matter. 6. In so far as the request of the petitioners for extension of the contract period is concerned, period of the contract is a matter which is covered by the mutual agreement between the parties and the extension of the period can also be decided only by an agreement. Therefore in the absence of an agreement, petitioner cannot unilaterally ask for extension of the contract period. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-