IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 18250 of 2008(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- S. THIYAGARAJAN, S/O. CHELLYA PILLAI, NO. 68, PERIYANNA MUDALI STREET, CHENNAI - 600 001. BY ADV. SRI. MATHEW SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. SOUTHERN RAILWAY, REP. BY DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD. 2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD. 3. SENIOR DIVISIONAL FINANCE MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD. BY SRI. N.B. SUNILNATH, SC FOR RAILWAY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.18250 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was awarded a contract by the Southern Railway, Palakkad Division for collection of parking fee in railway stations. At the time of award of the contract, the petitioner had furnished Earnest Money Deposit as well as bank guarantee for due performance of the contract. According to the petitioner, the agreement contained a Clause whereby either party could terminate the agreement by giving six months' prior notice. The petitioner submits that he gave six months' notice for termination of the contract, which was accepted by the respondents and the contract was terminated. The grievance of the petitioner now is that in spite of the termination of the contract, the EMD and the bank guarantee are not returned. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Exhibit P4, P6 and P9 orders of the respondents. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other W.P.(c0No.18250/08 2 appropriate writ, order or direction ordering the respondents to refund the balance Earnest Money Deposit due to the petitioner and also to return the Bank Guarantee. From a reading of Exhibit.P3 and P6, I find that the refusal to return the EMD and bank guarantee is on the ground that large amounts are due from the petitioner to the respondents by way of arrears licence fees for the period when the contract was still subsisting. The question as to whether arrears of licence fees are due from the petitioner to the respondents is a question of fact, which I cannot decide in this writ petition without taking evidence. Therefore, the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing a suit for recovery of the same. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek his remedies in a civil suit, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c0No.18250/08 3