IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 717 of 2010 -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.25352/2009 Dated 24/03/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- M.N. DEVADAS, SYAM NIVAS, PERUNNA EAST P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTEDBY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER, THE KERALA STATE LANDDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., OFFICE OF THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER, CHANDANAKAVU, ALAPPUZHA - 688 011. 4. TAHSILDAR, KARTHIKAPALLYTALUK, ALAPPUZHA. 5. TAHSILDAR, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. R1, R4 & R5 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI. P.N. MOHANAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.717 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by the order dated 24th March, 2010 by which a learned Judge of this Court declined to grant the interim order as prayed for by the writ petitioner, the unsuccessful writ petitioner has preferred the present writ appeal. 2. In brief, the dispute is that the appellant was awarded two contracts by the second respondent and on the ground that the appellant could not even commence the work on his obligations arising under the above-mentioned contracts, respondent No.2 through the 3rd respondent, an officer of the second respondent proposed to terminate the contract of the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, appellant approached this Court. By an interim order dated 8th September, 2009 all further actions in the context of the appellant's contract were stayed by this Court except the receipt of fresh tenders. On 17.11.2009 a detailed interim order was passed. By the said order this Court directed the appellant to complete atleast 75 per cent of the work by 31.3.2010. It appears from the W.A. No.717 of 2010 . - 2 - records and the order under appeal that the appellant could not comply with the directions of this Court. Hence by the order under appeal, the learned Judge vacated the interim order passed earlier. Hence the present appeal. 3. Having regard to the facts narrated above, we see no reason to interfere with the order under appeal. 4. However, Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that one of the reasons for the appellant for not being able to complete his obligations under the contract is that there was an illegal demand made by the third respondent which the appellant was not willing to concede. Though there is an allegation made in the writ petition in this regard which reads as follows, we are of the opinion that the allegation is too skeletal and vague: “ The reason was obvious to the Petitioner that it was due to the fact that Petitioner had not yielded to the illegal demands of the 3rd Respondent.” 5. However, in the circumstances, in view of the allegation, we deem it appropriate that the first respondent State be directed to conduct an enquiry into the allegation through the W.A. No.717 of 2010 . - 3 - Vigilance Wing of the Department and submit a report to this Court by the next date of hearing of the writ petition. The appellant would place a more specific complaint before the first respondent. Except for the above, we see no reason to interfere with the order under appeal. Writ appeal is disposed of as above. The first respondent would submit the report in the writ petition. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge vns/vku