IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 4654 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.K.RAJAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, ADARSH NIVAS, CHERUMAVILAYI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695001 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR-670001 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, KANNUR-670001 R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MM WP(C).No. 4654 of 2011(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.D4.TC-7/10 DATED 24-03-2010 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT P2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 21-06-2010 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED ONE Mr. NARAYANANKUTTY ON 19-07-2010 UNDER THE RTI ACT P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23-07-2010 RECEIVED FROM THE 4th RESPONDENT P5 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4th RESPONDENT DATED 27-07-2010 ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT RECEIVED FROM RE-CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS ACTION COMMITTEE P6 COPY OF THE DIRECTIONS RECEIVED BY THE 2nd RESPONDENT ON 26-05-2010 FROM THE 4th RESPONDENT P7 COPY OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE 4th RESPONDENT TO THE 2nd RESPONDENT ON 22-6-2010 P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2nd AND 4th RESPONDENTS ON 12-8-2010 P9 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11-10-2010 IN WP(C)26601/2010 P10 COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 20-10-2010 P11 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12-11-2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT P12 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27-12-2010 P13 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18-12-2010 SENT BY THE 4th RESPONDENT TO THE 2nd RESPONDENT P13(a) COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 02-02-2011 WP(C).No. 4654 of 2011(F) --2--- P14 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30-1-2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT P15 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22-12-2010 PASSED BY THE 4th RESPONDENT /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE MM ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 4654 of 2011 F ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 14th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ext.P1 is an agreement entered into between the petitioner and the fourth respondent whereby the right to collect toll at the Mammakunnu kadavu bridge in Kannur district for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 was awarded to the petitioner for a sum of `10,12,345/-, to be paid in 24 instalments. 2. Accordingly, the petitioner commenced the work. However, in May, 2010, on account of the restriction in the traffic imposed by the District Collector, there was considerable reduction in the vehicular traffic and consequently, there was reduction in the amount of toll collected also. As the continued performance of the contract was unavailable, petitioner requested the respondent for cancellation of the contract and for discharging the contract obligation. W.P.(C) No.4654/2011 : 2 : 3. Thereafter, he approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.26601/2010, which was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment, directing the fourth respondent to consider the complaints made by the petitioner. In pursuance to the directions of this Court, the fourth respondent conducted an enquiry into the matter and submitted Ext.P15 report to the third respondent. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent also confirmed his allegations and recommended for giving necessary relief to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, petitioner paid instalments for the period upto 01.07.2010 and though the contract period also expired, the Chief Engineer did not take any decision on Ext.P15 report of the fourth respondent. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking implementation of Ext.P15 and to exonerate him from the liability under Ext.P1 agreement. 2. In my view, the issue raised by the petitioner is in the realm of contract and it is for the Chief Engineer to take a W.P.(C) No.4654/2011 : 3 : decision in the matter duly adverting to the recommendations of the fourth respondent as contained in Ext.P15 report. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition, directing that the third respondent to whom Ext.P15 report has been made by the fourth respondent, to examine the claim of the petitioner for relief in view of the reduction in the vehicular traffic. On that basis, a decision in the matter will be taken by the third respondent. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. It is also directed that before a final decision is taken as above, notice will be given to the petitioner also. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/14/10 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge