IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33166 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- V.A.VASUDEVAN,S/O.APPUKUTTAN, AGED 52 YEARS, 'KARTHIKA' DHARMADAMM PO, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT OF FOREST & WILD LIFE GOVT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 3. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, KANNUR-12 4. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KANNUR DIVISION, KANNUR-12 5. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KANNAVAM FOREST RANGE,KANNAVAM, KOOTHUPARAMBA VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN 670 650. SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY VARGESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 33166 OF 2010 (U) ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T In pursuance to Ext.P1 tender notice, petitioner submitted his tender. He was awarded the tender and thereupon Exts.P4 and P5 agreements were executed. Petitioner now complains that Clause 23(iv) of the agreement goes beyond the scope of the tender notice and therefore is illegal. Challenging the said provision, though he had approached this Court by filing WP(C) NO.27499/10, this Court declined to entertain the writ petition and left the petitioner to pursue his remedies before the Civil Court. It is stated that subsequently, he made Ext.P9 representation to the 2nd respondent seeking to exonerate him from the operation of Clause 23(iv) of the agreement. This representation is pending. 2. In this writ petition, all that is sought for is a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P9. True, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the issue is one which is incapable of adjudication in a writ petition, and if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, he has to move the Civil Court. But WPC No. 33166/10 :2 : however, that does not mean that if a representation is made, it cannot be considered by the 2nd respondent. 3. In that view of the matter, without expressing anything on the merits, it is directed that if Ext.P9 has been received and is pending, 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass orders thereon. This shall be done at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp