IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23649 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S.SREE NARAYANA CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD SREENIVAS, OPP: K.S.R.T.C. BUS STATION, KOLLAM - 691 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, V.VARADA RAJAN. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COASTAL SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001 2. KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION CORPORATION LTD, 38/924-A, UDAYANAGAR ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.BIJISH B.TOM, SC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23649/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DT 10.5.2010. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.7.11 IN WPC NO.10213/11. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DT 3.8.11. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 11.8.11 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 16.8.11. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23649 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that the 1st respondent had awarded contract to the 2nd respondent for the work of part II side protection and beautification works of Akkulam Lake. It appears that the 2nd respondent invited tenders and awarded the work to the petitioner. The execution of the work got delayed and the reason according to the petitioner is delay on the part of the Irrigation Department. Petitioner submits that they supplied 36,000 meters of coconut poles valued at `54,00,000/- at site. For the works executed and the supply made, petitioner has submitted a part bill for an amount of `1,27,56,000/-. However, payment was not made by the 2nd respondent. 2. In the meantime, by Ext.P3 order passed on 3/8/11, 1st respondent cancelled the contract with the 2nd respondent and ordered to recover the amounts paid to the 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent also issued Ext.P4 communication cancelling the contract to the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to receive payment for the works already measured. The grievance WPC No. 23649/11 :2 : of the petitioner is that he has not been paid the value of the coconut poles supplied. In the circumstances, petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation to the 1st respondent requesting for payment and also for convening the meeting of the parties concerned for sorting out his problems. This representation is remaining unattended before the 1st respondent. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 petition at once; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent not to resume the contract amount to the extend pertaining to the claim of the petitioner from the 2nd respondent without resolving the question of payment to the petitioner for the supply of coconut poles effected as per Ext.P1 work order”; 3. In the nature of the grievance pleaded, the only direction that is possible in this writ petition is to direct the 1st respondent to take up and consider Ext.P5 representation made by the petitioner, and if necessary, to convene a meeting of parties concerned so that the grievance of the petitioner could be redressed to the extent possible. WPC No. 23649/11 :3 : 4. In that view, I direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, 1st respondent will consider the aforesaid representation and needful shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks thereafter. 5. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp