IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6864 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.MOHAMMED KOYA @ BAPPU, P.W.D. CONTRACTOR, POTTAMMAL HOUSE, VALIYANGADI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, AREACODE BLOCK PANCHAYAT, AIRCODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE AREACODE BLOCK PANCHAYAT, AREACODE-REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,NILAMBUR 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.6864 of 2010 (G) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that he is a PWD contractor and had entered into an agreement with the respondent Panchayat for construction of a road called Ridf X of NABARD - Areacode Block Panchayat - Construction of Odakkayam - Mundamthodu S.T.Colony - Olikkal Road. It is stated that although the petitioner had commenced work on the basis of the agreement, he could not complete the work due to the intervention of Forest Officals, whose permission was not obtained by the 1st respondent. In view of the above, the work had to be abandoned, and presently what the petitioner seeks is a direction to the 1st respondent Panchayat to release the security deposit and retention amount. It is seen that seeking release of the security deposit and retention amount, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 representation before the 1st respondent, and on that representation also, the 1st respondent has not taken any decision. WP(C) No.6864/2010 -2- From the facts as noticed above, it is evident that the 1st respondent has not so far taken a decision on the representation made by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 representation. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg