IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10179 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAGATHI S. KRISHNAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, THEKKEMUTTAMON VEEDU, VAZHAMUTTAM EAST, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SMT.SIMLA PRABHAKARAN SMT.SIJI JOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KOZHENCHERRY. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.10179 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that, he was the highest bidder for collection of sand from the Achankovil River for the period from 15.10.2008 to 31.10.2008 and Ext.P2 is the agreement that was entered into between the parties. On the strength of the agreement, according to the petitioner, he remitted Rs.4,15,610/-. Petitioner submits that, although he was permitted to remove 65 lorry loads of river sand, on account of the obstruction offered by the Union Leaders he could remove only 4 lorry loads of river sand. Therefore he submitted Exts.P5 and P6 praying either to extend the term of the agreement or to refund the amount deposited. When his claim was not considered he approached this court and filed WP(c).N.31440/08. That writ petition as disposed of by Ext.P11 judgment directing WP(c).No.10179/09 2 consideration of his claim. Accordingly, the matter was considered and by Ext.P12 his claim was turned down. It is in these circumstances challenging Ext.P12 the writ petition is filed. 2. A reading of Ext.P12 shows that the first respondent has relied on Ext.P2 agreement and concluded that the petitioner is not entitled either for enlargement of the period of the agreement or for return of the amount deposited. It is stated that in terms of the agreement petitioner is to suffer loss, if any, that has occurred, whatever be the reasons. 3. However, it is seen that similar requests made by certain other contractors have been favourably considered by the first respondent himself. Counsel for the petitioner relies on Exts.P7,P8 and P9 in this behalf. 4. The aforesaid orders, viz Exts.P7,P8 and P9 show that for reasons beyond the control of certain contractors that they could not collect sand and on being satisfied of the genuineness of the claim, the respondents enlarged the period WP(c).No.10179/09 3 of contract. Therefore, the fact that in certain cases, depending upon the genuineness of the claim, enlargement has been given. 5. If that be so, the claim of the petitioner ought to have been considered on identical lines. A reading of Ext.P12 shows that such a consideration was not shown. For that reason I am inclined to set aside Ext.P12 and I do so. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner raised as per Exts.P5 ad P6, in the light of Exts.P7 to P9. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the Ist respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.10179/09 4