IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 11062 of 2008(P) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MODERN GRAPHICS , SHOBHA NIVAS, KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM- 691008, REP. BY PROPRIETRIX ANNIE ALEXANDER. BY ADV. SRI. E.M. JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682016. 2. FREDDY ALEXANDER, AGED 46, S/O. J.M.ALEXANDER, NO.5, MES ROAD, SWAMINATHA IYER STREET, TAMBARAM(E) CHENNAI-5. ADV. SRI. P.M. M. NAJEEB KHAN, SC, BSNL FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 11062 of 2008(P) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2004 IN O.P.(IDA) 721/2003 OF FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF PAGE 3 OF APPLICATION FORM FOR PERMANENT S.S.I REGISTRATION. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY BY THE SALES TAX OFFICER DATED 16.12.1996. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE SHOP INSPECTION REPORT BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, DATED 21.12.1995. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 30.11.2004 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT, ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.01.2005 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DATED 19.03.2007 ISSUED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28.06.2007 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 11062 of 2008 ................................................. Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner entered into an agreement with the 1st respondent for supply of Computer stationery. According to the petitioner, a balance of Rs.88,000/- is outstanding as payment for supply effected pursuant to the agreement. The petitioner alleges that when the amount was demanded, the 1st respondent took arbitrary stand that they would not make the payment. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to disburse to the petitioner the balance amount of Rs.88,000.00 with 18% interest p.a. from 31.1.2001 till the date of disbursement.” The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is submitted that the petitioner is not the proprietor of the firm and it is her husband who is the proprietor and they had been divorced. The petitioner cannot demand any payment, is their contention. I am of opinion that when the liability itself is disputed bonafide the remedy of the petitioner lies in W.P(C) No. 11062 of 2008 -2- approaching a form were the petitioner can prove her contentions by adducing evidence. Accordingly without prejudice to that right this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs