IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11261 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.K.NOORUDHEEN SHAH, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.KUNHUMON, THALIKULAM DESOM, THRISSUR, PROPRIETOR, M/S.SHA ADVERTISERS, NEAR GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THALIKULAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR SRI.P.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ELECTRICAL SECTION, THRISSUR CORPORATION M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR SC SRI. K.B. MOHANDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).13008/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C)s.11261 & 13008/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT Insofar as W.P.(C).11261/2010 is concerned, petitioner was the contractor for the installation of hoardings in the area of the 1st respondent Corporation. The period of contract was upto 31.3.2010. According to the petitioner, the Corporation had already invited tenders for the year 2010-11 and he too had submitted his quotation. His complaint was that the Corporation was keeping finalisation of the tender for the year 2010-13 pending and that on finalisation, if the contract is eventually awarded to him, he will not have to remove the hoardings which he has already installed. On this basis, petitioner seeks a direction for an expeditious finalization of the contract for the year 2010-13, pursuant to the tenders received by the Corporation. 2. Today when the matter came up for orders, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation, has submitted W.P.(C).11261 & 13008/10 2 that tenders have been finalized and contract has been awarded in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(C).13008/2010, who has also executed an agreement with the Corporation. Faced with that situation, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the finalization of the contract and the agreement that was executed for the year 2010-13 are irregular. In this writ petition this Court is not concerned with the validity of the arrangement that the Corporation has made for the year 2010-13. Admittedly, the period of contract awarded to the petitioner has expired and the Corporation has not been granted the contract for the year 2010-11 also. In such circumstances, the relief sought in this writ petition against the Corporation to finalize the contract for the year 2010-13 does not arise for consideration and the writ petition is only to be dismissed as infructuous. I do so. 3. Insofar as W.P.(C).13008/2010 is concerned, the writ petitioner is the successful contractor for the year 2010-13. His complaint is regarding the non consideration of Ext.P6 representation made by him where he seeks appropriate action W.P.(C).11261 & 13008/10 3 by the Corporation for removal of the hoardings which are installed by the previous contractor. If, as stated by the petitioner, the said representation has been made and as the Corporation has awarded the contract to him, it is only appropriate that the Corporation shall take necessary action on Ext.P6. This the Corporation shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs