IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 OP.No. 2738 of 2001(A) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ELDHOSE PYNADATH, P.W.D. CONTRACOTR, ANAGHA BHAVAN, KENICHIRA P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL) SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT SUB DIVISION, SULTHAN BATHERI. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.W.D. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT SECTION, MEENANGADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. THE ZILLA PANCHAYATH WAYANAD, CIVIL STATION KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD DISTRCIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA FOR R1 & R2 SRI.K.BABU THOMAS FOR R3 SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU FOR R4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2009, HE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 2738 of 2001(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.3.1998 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIOINER. EXT.P2 - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 23/4/1998. EXT.P3 - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/3/99 EXT.P4 - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25/7/2000. EXT.P5 - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. 2738 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a contractor who undertook execution of certain works on behalf of the 3rd respondent. Allegedly, on account of breach of contract, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P4 order, whereby the contract was terminated at the risk and costs of the petitioner. Petitioner is challenging the same. For deciding the question as to whether the petitioner was guilty of breach of contract on which the validity of Ext.P4 depends, is a question of fact, for deciding which evidence is necessary. That can be done only in a suit. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a suit for the same cause of action if he can validly do so at this point of time, this writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs