IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2010 / 2ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38299 of 2010(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- B.MOHANLAL, S/O. BHASKARAN, AGED 59 YEARS, 'GOVINDA SADANAM', CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER IBRAHIM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHERTHALA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 524. 2. CHERTHALA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BY ITS CHAIRMAN, OFFICER OF THE CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY CHERTHALA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 524. BY ADV. SRI.J.OMPRAKASH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.38299 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T Ext.P6 notice dated 12.8.2010, issued by the Secretary of Cherathala Municipality, cancelling the agreement entered into between the Cherthala Municipality and the petitioner, in the matter of construction of Cherthala Town-Hall, is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to Cherthala Municipality, to consider Ext.P7 appeal filed by him challenging Ext.P6 notice and take an appropriate decision thereon, within a time limit to be fixed by this court. 2. By Ext.P6, the Secretary of Cherthala Municipality has informed the petitioner that the Council of Cherthala Municipality had at its meeting held on 31.7.2010, discussed the issue and resolved to terminate the contract awarded to the petitioner for construction of the Town Hall and decided to complete the construction by re-tendering the work, at the petitioner's risk and cost. If the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6, his remedy is to institute a suit in the court of competent jurisdiction, seeking appropriate remedies. Further in my view, no appeal will lie from 2 W.P.(C).No.38299 of 2010 Ext.P6, to the council of the Municipality. Under section 509 of the Kerala Municipality Act, an appeal would lie from an order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality to the Council of the Municipality under the provisions of the Act. Ext.P6 is not an order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality, invoking any power under the Kerala Municipality Act. Ext.P6 is only a notice issued by the Secretary of the Cherthala Municipality, terminating the contract entered into between the Cherthala Municipality with the petitioner, pursuant to a decision taken in that regard by the Municipal Council itself. In such circumstances, I hold that, Ext.P7 appeal is incompetent. I accordingly hold that, there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed, without prejudice or right of the petitioner to institute other appropriate proceedings for redressal of his grievances. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ami/