IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH, 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1929 WP(C).No. 8237 of 2008(E) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- K.A.KALAM K.S.K.T. MANZIL, TC 8 1335/4, THIRUMALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 006. BY ADV. SRI.T.Y.LALIZA RESPONDENT: ----------------- THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 8237 of 2008 - E --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Raman,J: The prayer made in this writ petition is for return of the earnest money deposited by the petitioner with the Travancore Devaswom Board. Earlier, the petitioner was stated to be the successful bidder in an auction conducted for the right to collect coconuts from the Pampa Ganapathi Kovil. On failure to pay the balance amount as stipulated in the contract, re-auction was conducted and the contract was awarded to the bidder in the re-auction. But the petitioner's request for return of the earnest money was not considered. Hence this petition is filed. 2. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Board submit that in matters of this nature, no writ petition is maintainable. He placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in National Highway Authority of India v. M/s.Ganga Enterprises and another (AIR 2003 SC 3823) wherein the Apex Court held that the right WP(C) NO. 8237 of 2008 :-2-: arising out of a contract is not a matter to be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this Court is not a proper forum. 3. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at present, a representation was already made by the petitioner for refund of the return of the earnest money deposit and it is up to the authority to consider such request and pass orders which in this case has not been done and therefore, he seeks for a direction to consider and dispose of the representation in accordance with law. 4. Having heard both sides, we find that the only relief which can be granted in this writ petition, at this juncture, is to direct the respondent herein to consider Ext.P2 and send a reply to the petitioner, expeditiously. In case the petitioner is not satisfied with the reply received or the earnest money is not returned as per representation made, necessarily, the petitioner's right is only to approach the civil court. WP(C) NO. 8237 of 2008 :-3-: The writ petition is disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition shall be served on the respondents. P.R.RAMAN, Judge V.K.MOHANAN, Judge MBS/ WP(C) NO. 8237 of 2008 :-4-: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O.P.NO. OF 2001 ------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T WP(C) NO. 8237 of 2008 :-5-: DATED: -2007