IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WA.No. 1145 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20802/2011 Dated 01/08/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- A.K.KUNJUMUHAMMUD, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.M.K.KHADER, EDATHIL HOUSE, PALLIKKAVALA, MUNDAKKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL SRI.JOSWIN THAMBI KUNNATH MRS.S.SREELAKSHMY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KSRTC DISTRICT OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 542. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1145 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. Termination of the contract awarded to the appellant to run comfort station in the KSRTC bus station by, vide Exhibit P5, is under challenge. 2. The factual position reveals that the appellant turned to be the successful bidder, pursuant to which, he was allotted the contract as per Exhibit P1 order dated 29.3.2011, issued by the concerned authority under the KSRTC. By virtue of the said order, the appellant was running the comfort station for the period from 1.3.2011, which was valid till 29.2.2012. In the meanwhile, allegedly at the instance of some persons, who are having personal animosity, the contract was put to an end by the second respondent as per Exhibit P5, which was sought to be intercepted by filing the Writ Petition. 3. When the matter came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, the respondent-Corporation entered appearance through the learned Standing Counsel and produced the relevant files. After perusing the files, the learned Judge WA.1145/11 2 arrived at a conclusion that the averments and allegations raised by the writ petitioner were quite wrong and unfounded and accordingly interference was declined, however, relegating the writ petitioner to avail the remedy before the Civil Court which, in turn, is under challenge in this Writ Appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the learned single judge is not correct or sustainable, for the reason that the case put forth by the appellant, especially with regard to the sustainability of Exhibit P5, is not properly dealt with. It is stated that the said order is not a speaking order; that the same was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and further that there is no finding of guilt on the part of the appellant. Exhibit P5 reflects arbitrary exercise of power and hence, it is liable to be interfered, submits the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents and submitted that a lot of allegations were there, as to the running of the comfort station by the appellant, which attracted much attention of the 'mass media' as well. Some paper reports are also placed for consideration before this Court. However, we do not propose to look into any such aspects, but for WA.1145/11 3 the available materials on record. Going by the records, it is seen that the running of the comfort station was not to the satisfaction of the respondents, which led to Exhibit P5 order. Whether the observations or reasons stated therein are correct or not, is a matter to be adjudicated on the basis of specific pleadings and evidence to be let in, which exercise can be pursued only in a Civil Court or such other appropriate forum and not before this Court, invoking the discretionary power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. In the said circumstances, we find that the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge relegating the writ petitioner to avail the remedy before the Civil Court does not call for any interference. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs