IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17389 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.C. MATHEW, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O CHACKO, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, MULLAPPALLI HOUSE, KUNJITHANNI P.O., ADIMALY-VIA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, K.W.A., P.H. CIRCLE, MUVATTUPUZHA, 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, KATTAPPANA. BY SRI. M. DINESH, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 17389 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 11th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext. P20 proceedings of the 3rd respondent whereby a contract between the petitioner and the Water Authority has been terminated on the ground of breach of contract at the risk and costs of the petitioner. Petitioner's contention is that the 3rd respondent cannot unilaterally cancel the agreement and that the petitioner was not given a notice before issuing Ext. P20. 2. First of all, a party to an agreement can certainly terminate the agreement if, according to that party, there is breach of contract, which only has been done in this case. Against such action, the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing a suit for damages or specific performance especially since for deciding as to whether there is breach or contract or not, ascertaining of facts on evidence would be required. Regarding the contention of want of notice, in Ext. P20 itself, it is specifically stated thus: “In this context a show cause notice was served to contractor vide this office letter on even no. dtd. 28.7.06 for not completing the work as per the agreement condition and a final notice issued to him vide this office letter on even no. dtd. 21.11.06 in which it was clearly mentioned that there will not be any further communication regarding this and consider this as final notice.” Going by the same, I am not satisfied that the petitioner's contention regarding want of notice can be accepted. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a suit challenging the termination of the agreement, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.