IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 32062 of 2008(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ---------------- R. VINAYACHANDRAN, ELAMPLAVIL HOUSE, (SIVA KRIPA), PARAKODE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.I.P DIVISION NO.II (O&M), KOTTARAKKARA. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.I.P (O&M) SUB DIVISION NO.III, SASTHAMCOTTA. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.IP (O&M), SECTION NO.9/3, SASTHAMCOTTA. 4. AJITHA, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.I.P (O&M), SECTION NO. 9/3, SASTHAMCOTTA. SMT.M.R SREELATHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32062/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF SELECTION NOTICE EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SHOWING THE ACCEPTANCE OF EXHIBIT P3. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 32062 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009 The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the first respondent to conduct an inspection from '0' meter to the end of the Sasthamcottah branch canal and to pass the contract bill of the petitioner. 2. Petitioner claims to be a contractor, who was awarded the work of maintenance of aforesaid canal. According to him for the work he did, he has not been paid. It is in that background this prayer is made. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. In the affidavit, it is stated that the work of the petitioner was unsatisfactory and that the second part was not even performed. It is stated that after several notices, the contract was terminated and according to the second respondent, no amount is due to the petitioner. 4. From the dispute thus raised by the parties, it is evident that while the petitioner claims to have executed the work satisfactorily, the respondents submitted that the contract W.P.(C) No. 32062 /2008 2 was terminated and that a portion of the work was not even been done. In view of the nature of dispute, I think the remedy available to the petitioner is to file a Civil Suit before the appropriate Civil Court and establish his claims. Therefore, the writ petition is closed leaving open the contentions raised and with liberty to seek relief in a Civil Court. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm