IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7374 of 2011(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M.M.MATHACHAN, S/O.MICHAEL, THULUVANANICKAL PIPES PVT.LTD., KUTTUKKAN COMPLEX, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR, RESIDING AT TALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. SAMBA SIVA REDDY, S/O.LAKSHMANAN REDDY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.SARAVANA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD., ENGINEERS AND BUILDERS, SKANDU NIVAS, 155-B, 4TH MAIN, DEFENCE COLONY HALL II STATE, BANGLORE. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (NW), MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICE, NAVAL BASE P.O., KATARIBAGH, COCHIN-4. 3. GARRISON ENGINEER (MAINTENANCE), EZHIMALA, NAVAL ACADEMY P.O., PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. R4 BY ADVS. SRI.K.HARILAL, CGC SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7374 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court virtually seeking to execute Ext.P1 verdict in O.S Nos.60/2004 and 61/2004 with the prayers as follows: i) Issue a writ , order or direction to the respondents to order Judicial Enquiry into the unlawful activities of Lottery racket dealing with inter state lotteries within the state involving Rs.80,000/- Crores as stated in Exts.P6 and P7 and irregularities and malfunctioning in the Lottery Industry within the State. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to disburse the amount liable to be paid by the first respondent as per Ext.P1, to the petitioner while making payment as per Ext.P2 award. Iii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the amount covered by Ext.P1 judgment from out of the amount belong to the 1st respondent lying with the respondents 2 and 3. iii) To command the respondents 2 and 3 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 and P3(a) respectively expeditiously before disbursing the amount as ordered in Ext.P2. iv) To command the respondents 2 and 3 not to disburse the amount covered by Ext.P2 to the first respondent without deducting the amount due to the petitioner as quantified in Ext.P1. v) To issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. W.P.(C) No. 7374/2011 - 2 - 2. Heard the standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 as well. 3. The case of the petitioner as projected in the Writ Petition is that the petitioner is a distributor of R.C.C pipes and the first respondent construction company had undertaken certain works awarded by the other respondents. Because of the non-clearane of the dues to the petitioner, the petitioner has approached the Civil Court leading to Ext.P1, whereby the petitioner has been permitted to realise a total sum of Rs.19,50,180/- with interest and cost as specified thereunder. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent, by virtue of the contract awarded by the other respondents, is about to get nearly Rs. 2,21,03,500/- from them as borne by Ext.P2. It is in the said circumstance that the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking for a direction to the second and third respondents to consider Ext.P3 and P3(a) representations preferred by the petitioner before disbursing the said amount as covered by Ext.P2. 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 submits that the eligibility of the first respondent as per Ext.P2 itself has been disputed and that the said respondents are raising necessary challenge in this regard. In any view of the matter, there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4 in this regard. W.P.(C) No. 7374/2011 - 3 - 5. In the above circumstances, if the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy lies before the Civil Court to have Ext.P1 executed against the first respondent. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the matter. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. Vdv P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE