IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15603 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAMAGRA VIKAS SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY, REGISTER NO.K-367.79, VIKAS BHAVAN, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA - 688 012, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FR. JOSE KOOLIPURACKAL, C.M.I.M.S.W BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES SMT.K.V.RAMYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -1. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SERCRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DISASTER MANAGEMENT (TSUNAMI REHABILITATION PROGRESS TRP-CELL) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-.1 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15603 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 25.9.08 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE THIRD RESPONDENT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.12.08 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE ALEPPEY DIOCESA CHARITABLE AND WELFARE SOCIETY, ALAPUZHA EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.2.2010 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).15603/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 6th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the third respondent for the work of construction of houses for the Tsunami victims. It is stated that they constructed 345 houses. Subsequently petitioner claimed certain additional benefits including payment of 2% of the contract amount towards management fee. This request of the petitioner was considered and the request for management fee was rejected. The reason contained in Ext.P3 is that the petitioner had agreed to do the work at Rs.2.5 Lakhs per house which include all the taxes and expenses. 2. It is on receipt of Ext.P3 that this writ petition has been filed challenging the denial of management fee and mainly relying on Ext.P2, an order which was issued by the Government in favour of somebody else, where the said benefit of management fee was allowed. W.P.(C).15603/11 2 3. First of all, the relationship between the petitioner and the Government is purely contractual and therefore, the rights and obligations of the parties are governed by Ext.P1 agreement. Secondly, the terms subject to which the beneficiary of Ext.P2 have agreed to undertake the work are not before this Court. 4. Therefore, this Court will not be justified in interfering with Ext.P3 order. The writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs