IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 8511 of 2011(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- N.C.ALEXANDER, NELPURA HOUSE, INDIRA NAGAR, DEVALOKAM P.O.,, KOTTAYAM-38. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROADS & BRIDGES CORPORATION, REGD.OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDING, M.V.ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 025. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, ROADS & BRIDEGS CORPORATION, REGD.OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDING, M.V.ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 025. BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYA KUMAR, SC, RBDCK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 8511 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 31st May , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is a contractor, turned to be the successful bidder to collect the 'user fee' in respect of the Railway Over bridge Kadukkamkunnam, Palakkad District for the period 06.06.2010 to 06.06.2011. The case of the petitioner is that, after finalisation of the bid in favour of the petitioner, a number of “free passes” were issued at the instance of the Minister, whereby huge loss has been caused to the petitioner because of the drastic reduction in collection of the user fee. It is stated that, some other contributing factors were also there, with regard to the loss of revenue and though the petitioner approached the concerned respondents for reduction in the payment of installments, the same did not turn to be fruitful, which made the petitioner to approach this Court for appropriate relief, particularly when the right to collect the 'user fee' has already been taken over by the concerned respondents. 2. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out the facts and figures, rebutting the averments and allegations raised in the writ petition. The right to cancel the W.P.(C) No. 8511 OF 2011 2 contract and the steps taken in this regard are sought to be sustained with reference to clause 3.18 of the agreement executed with the petitioner. The petitioner has chosen to file a reply affidavit, virtually reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition. 3. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the attempt of the petitioner is to get rid of the situation referring to the alleged loss of revenue and the terms of the contract; for which the remedy lies elsewhere. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner, the rights and liabilities under the contract are to be worked out on the basis of the specific pleadings, adducing evidence, which course is not possible at the hands of this Court, invoking the extra ordinary special jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the above circumstance, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed; however without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue other appropriate remedy. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk